| 1. |
- Haake, Ulrika, 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Leadership in swedish public organizations : a research review in education and care
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies. - : VIA University College. - 2245-0157. ; 13:2, s. 63-85
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article is a review of recent Swedish leadership research in two large public-sector areas: education and care. By comparing and contrasting research in these areas, we unveil the specifics and commonalities of research in public-sector leadership. We reviewed research articles from 2018 to 2020 and analyzed theories used, data-gathering methods employed, and topics researched. The results show some fundamental differences between the two areas. Compared to research on education, research on care is to a larger extent non-theoretical and is often focused on change management, quality assurance, and leaders’ roles in employee health. Conversely, studies on education are theory driven and mostly focused on leaders’ roles in learning and shared leadership. We discuss the state of Swedish public leadership research and make suggestions for mutual learning and moving forward in this research field.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pettersson, Fanny, et al.
(författare)
-
A validated questionnaire for measuring digitalization as sociocultural change in educational contexts
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The international journal of information and learning technology. - : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. - 2056-4880 .- 2056-4899. ; 41:4, s. 359-370
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: In the so-called digital age, there is a basic assumption that digitalization entails rapid and dramatic change in schools, education and society. However, a challenge for educational research is to clarify what digitalization precisely means. This paper aims to develop, test, and validate a digital transformation scale (DTS). More specifically, the aim is to validate digitization, digitalization and digital transformation as hierarchical levels of sociocultural learning in school and education by using cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) as a framework.Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with principal-axis factoring as an extraction method, was used to examine the number of factors underlying the data.Findings: Results show that the three dimensions in the DTS questionnaire explain 68% of the variance and that all dimensions show high internal consistency (a >0.87). This means that the internal structure of the DTS corresponded to the internal structure of the theory.Research limitations/implications: The results show that the internal structure of the DTS corresponded to the internal structure of the theory and may be used quantitatively to analyze digital transformation in school organizations. However, further research is needed in other contexts and larger samples with the use of confirmatory factor analysis to develop knowledge in this area and the use of DTS.Practical implications: This tool and theoretical construction could be used to discuss digital transformation in school and education, both local and in general. Seeing digitalization from a sociocultural perspective makes possible to conceptualize and discuss this as a process ranging from small technology investments on an individual level to digitalization as strategic and organizational development.Originality/value: This DTS can be used quantitatively to study and analyze digital transformation in educational contexts and provides educational researchers with additional tools to articulate what they mean by digitalization.
|
|
| 3. |
- Siljebo, Josef
(författare)
-
A Methodological Blueprint for Developing Interventionist Educational e-research : the Case of the Digital Change Laboratory
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. - : Universitetsforlaget. - 1891-943X .- 0809-6724. ; 17:2, s. 135-145
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This position paper suggests digital development of the Change Laboratory (CL), a third-generation, activity theo-retical, educational participatory methodology. Moreover, it provides a blueprint of developing educational meth-odology through acknowledging and building upon methodologies foundational assumptions. Examples are givenof the CL in contemporary educational research, where the methodology is seeing continued use for developmentof educational work practice. This is followed by a principled argument for the development of the Digital ChangeLaboratory. By using both synchronous and asynchronous digital technologies, the Digital Change Laboratory maygive educational researchers additional pragmatic, collaborative, and participative-focused research tools that specifi-cally enable collaborative engagements between research and practice to cross the boundaries of time and space. Theunique contribution of the paper is a conceptual development of the CL methodology, which is of importance consid-ering that publications using the methodology with digital technologies for collaboration are hard to find. Moreover,the contribution is to educational research methodology in general, where there may be an increasing need to crossthe boundaries of time and space to meet future societal challenges via digital technologies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Siljebo, Josef
(författare)
-
Digitalization and digital transformation in schools : a challenge to educational theory?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Education in the North. - : School of Education at the University of Aberdeen. - 0424-5512 .- 2398-0184. ; 27:2, s. 24-37
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is an apparent lack of theoretically robust definitions of digitalization and digital transformation in educational research. This article purposes to contribute to educational research and practice by understanding digitalization and digital transformation through educational theory. The approach to the research problem was first to theoretically define digitalization and digital transformation in schools in terms of human learning and development. This perspective suggested that digitalization may be a requirement for digital transformation but not an enabler. Moreover, it suggests that digitalization and digital transformation in schools are always anchored to human learning and development. Secondly, the approach empirically tests this theoretical development via a quantitative questionnaire survey with seventeen Swedish school leaders. The data indicated the theoretical development seems to hold in school practice as well as conceptually. Limitations to the approach were discussed, and suggestions to future research of remote teaching in rural schools are given. In particular, future research is suggested to develop, contrast, and use the definition.
|
|
| 5. |
- Siljebo, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Distributed and Individual School Leadership Properties for Digitalization in Schools: a Policy Artifact Translation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ECER programmes, 2021. - : EERA.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper presents a study aimed at understanding two school policy artifacts as part of a digitalized school leadership practice. A digitalized practice that today focus on the digital knowledge, skills and values of school leaders in particular (see e.g. Dexter, 2008;2018 for research on school leaders’ role for digitalized school practice, and Kampylis, Punie and Devine, 2015 for European policy). A practice, moreover, where educational policy makers today come in close contact with these individuals through digital school policy artifacts that suggest which actions to take in school practice. Both artifacts in focus are online self-assessment questionnaires. One is authored by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR), the other is authored by the European Commission (EC). Both artifacts are by these authors proposed to have a similar purpose: to support school leaders’ actions to digitalize their schools. Leaving the question whether ‘implementing’ digitalization in schools is appropriate or not to the side, our aim is to deepen educational research’s theoretical understanding of these policy artifacts. Specifically focusing on how they work as policy artifacts, and how they translate into digital competence and may work through the people that use them.The approach we take to deepening the theoretical understanding, is to analyze possible policy translations, following Freeman and Sturdy’s (2014) policy embodiment, inscription and enactment framework and two different perspectives on leadership in schools. Freeman and Sturdy argue for a comprehensive approach to knowledge in policy, that builds on a few central assumptions that we share. The first is that that policy making today is influenced by governance processes (e.g. Kooiman, 2003): processes that take on horizontal aspects of policy movement between countries, between institutions, and between actors. Governance is often portrayed in contrast to vertical, top-down governing processes. Thus, governance in educational policy making can, for example, be framed in terms of large European policy actors influencing national educational policy (e.g. Grek et al., 2009) in contrast to one nation governing its own educational policy without influence from the surrounding environment.The second assumption is that policy is concretely material, inscribed in material objects and bodies (Freeman and Sturdy, 2014). Depending on the materials, policy making naturally takes on different affordances and constraints. Today, of course, when our material world is increasingly digital, policy making is taking place increasingly in digital practice, inscribed in digital information technologies. Digital technologies can for example afford educational policy making to increasingly draw on real-time big data generated from people using digital policy artifacts (e.g. Williamson, 2016). Conversely, the technologies may also constrain action for supposed 'receivers’ of educational policy, such as school leaders in schools taking action based on ‘supportive’ digital policy artifacts.The third is that knowledge in ‘policy in general’ is a process taking place in practice and can be framed in terms of practical knowledge. Through this perspective, knowledge in policy making is a very human process, operating on the same practical terms as people do and not as some universal epistemic truths. Freeman and Sturdy thus frame ‘policy in general’ as a knowledge process, where knowledge in policy is translated and thus transformed when it goes through phases of being embodied in people, becoming inscribed in policy artifacts, and is enacted by people taking action in complex practice.MethodThis paper focuses the analysis on the creation of the questionnaires as described by the policy actors in documentation, and the statements included in the questionnaire items as they are made available to school leaders online. These documents and items constitute the study's data. The theoretical framing used in the analysis is Freeman and Sturdy (2014) to make visible the translation processes, as well as two different perspectives on school leadership practice. One perspective is role focused, where school leadership practice is described in terms of what successful school leaders do (Leithwood and Riehl, 2003). The other perspective is community focused, where school leadership practice is described in terms of the distributed leadership properties within the distribution of labor in schools (Gronn, 2000). By utilizing these two different perspectives, we will pursue a deeper theoretical understanding on the translation that school leaders may make when taking steps to digitalize their schools by use of the policy artifacts. The reasoning being that it seems reasonable that the artifacts can be translated as both individual leadership (role) and distributed leadership (community), depending on the person doing the translation and the practice where the person works. These different translations will lead to different actions taken. Documents and questionnaire items are analysed qualitatively using the computer program NVivo 12, where categories from Leithwood and Riehl (2003) and Gronn (2000) are used to systematically analyse the policy artifacts. Moreover, Freeman and Sturyd's (2014) description of the translation process is used to frame the artifacts as part of a knowledge process in the digitalized school leadership practice.Expected OutcomesOur initial assumption is that to be an ‘adequately digitally competent school leader’ using these artifacts to digitalize school practice, one or the other perspective will weigh more heavily. Moreover, that translating digital competence as it is meant by policy actors ‘in the artifacts’, weighs more heavily into supplying digital technologies over either perspective’s broader assumptions about leadership in school practice. Our two-fold analysis is expected to bring a deeper understanding of digitalized school leadership practice where national and European policy actors are one important influence. There is a concrete need for both educational research and educational practice to go beyond the description found on the websites where they are labeled as supportive tools. This is a significant contribution not currently found in research on the digitalization of schools. We also expect that implications for educational research and practice relative to digital competence for school leaders will be found.
|
|
| 6. |
- Siljebo, Josef, 1982-
(författare)
-
Leading learning through digitalization in Swedish schools : beyond school leaders?
- 2023
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- How can digitalization in schools be led towards positive outcomes? This has for education policy makers in Sweden been a question for decades. In recent years, formal school leaders in schools have come in focus in policy as important not only for schools in general, also specifically concerning digitalizing schools. The expectation is that school leaders leading of digitalization in schools will improve learning in schools by way of ‘harnessing’ the many supposed opportunities of digital technologies for learning. The thesis, in four empirical studies including school leaders, teachers, students and others, investigates how learning is lead through digitalization in schools beyond school leaders. The research questions asked are (RQ1) how can digitalization in schools as learning be understood and (RQ2) who is leading learning through digitalization in schools and by what means? Cultural-historical activity theory is utilized to understand learning as a relation between individual (person) and society. This entails, on the one hand, that (RQ1) how digitalization in schools as learning can be understood is answered by understanding learning as a relation between individuals and society in concrete (real) activities. On the other hand, given the individual learning-society relation, (RQ2) who is leading learning through digitalization in schools and by what means is constituted by many possible whos and means, not just formal school leaders. The results from the capstone’s analysis entail that how learning is lead through digitalization in Swedish schools beyond school leaders, is a process that spans national governing via national education agencies, urbanization in sparsely populated regions, and large-scale municipal digitalization projects. That is, concrete activities where societal needs for learning are different in kind, and yet where the expectation in policy concerning digitalization in schools would entail that any formal school leader, individually, is supposed to be able to deliver on societal needs.
|
|
| 7. |
- Siljebo, Josef
(författare)
-
Made in Sweden? Configured digitalized school leadership practice
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of education policy. - : Routledge. - 0268-0939 .- 1464-5106. ; 39:1, s. 149-165
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Few notions seem to capture the imagination of education policymakers today as completely as digitalization and leadership. Through these two, schools are believed to become transformed, and in turn, these transformed schools will transform people and society. This paper critically analyzes a Swedish official digital policy instrument that materializes digitalized school leadership practice. The policy instrument is made available as a ‘helpful tool’ by a Swedish official education agency. The paper scrutinizes the policy knowledge process set to work within the instrument by the agency. Particularly, how the instrument may influence people to come to know and change schools, and how responsibility and risk of digitalization in schools seems to first be transferred to, and then between, people in schools. The paper is concluded by a discussion of how (a) three knowledge phases interact in the knowledge process of the instrument, (b) the technical – rather than social – solution that digitalized school leadership practice is found to be, and (c) implications for digitalization in schools as a social, cultural and historical phenomenon of interest to research.
|
|
| 8. |
- Siljebo, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
School leadership in a digitalized society : Reflections on the Use of a Survey Tool for Improving Educational Practice
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ECER programmes.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This presentation will report from a pilot study using a novel quantitative instrument as a mean for findings of scientific relevance as well as of relevance for school development. The aim of the pilot study was to better understand school leadership in the midst of digitalization in school. The project was based on two theoretical positions for understanding leadership in the context of digitalization: Leadership behaviours according to Yukl (2013) and Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) according to Engeström, (2015). The essence of leadership in organizations is, according to Yukl (2013),“influencing and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives”. Leaders can improve the performance of a team or organization by influencing the processes that determine performance.Background: The Swedish government has commissioned a national pilot project to test sustainable collaboration models between academia and the school or school system regarding research, school activities and teacher education for the period 2017 to 2021 (ulfavtal.se). Expectations are to contribute to the research base of the school system, and to conduct research build on equal terms between researchers and schools. In Sweden there is an explicit expectation in the Education Act, that education is to “rest on a scientific grounds and proven experience” (Section 5). This means that teachers and school leaders are to base the exercise of their profession on research and that school development is to be permeated by a scientific approach. Along this argument, a need to develop sustainable collaboration models between the school system and academia resting on common grounds is formulated as a goal of the pilot project. Similar collaborative approaches between practice and academa are adopted in many European countreis. This means embracing a dimension of development work into the approach to research.The idea of forming collaborations between schools and academia to improve the quality of the educational practice is not new internationally. There is a growing body of initiatives with the aim to connect school improvement with external actors such as universities through networks and collaborative partnerships of different kinds (Chapman et al., 2016). Research shows how this may lead to meaningful changes in the teaching and learning processes in schools (Ainscow, 2012). Literature on initial teacher education, professional development for teachers, and educational research, also acknowledges how school–academia partnerships are powerful collaborations that can result in improved practice and results for students (Day & Smethem, 2010). However, only a limited amount of research tries to understand how such partnerships and collaboration forms stem from strategic leadership (e.g., Murphy, 2017).In this paper we address the issue of better understanding how such collaborations can be built on strategic decisions about content for collaboration, when it comes to digitalization in schools. Digitalization and school leadership: As discussed by Olofsson et al. (2015), school leaders often experience digitalization processes as “challenging and difficult” (p. 117). Chua Reyes (2015) showed that school leaders experience that their role has changed “from leading a team of teachers who have been deliverers of knowledge towards leading a team of teacher facilitators” (2015, p. 378). In Sweden, research on school leadership is rather limited (Ärlestig et al., 2016). Studies at hand argues that leadership is important for implementation of digital visions and reforms (Petersen, 2014). Moreover, that school leaders’ professional development is needed to effectively lead for digitalization in school (cf. Håkansson-Lindqvist & Pettersson, 2019; Pettersson, 2018). In 2012, the Swedish School Inspectorate (Lund, 2012) pointed out that school leaders do not actively lead, and support digitalization and that more knowledge is needed for leading digitalization in school.Method: The quantitative instrument is based on two constructs (1) notions of leadership (based on the survey developed by Yukl, 2013); and (2) levels of expansive learning with digital technology (based on the theoretical foundations found in Engeström, 2015). The first construct is measured in four meta-categories: Task-oriented behaviours, Relations-oriented behaviours, Change-oriented behaviours, and External leadership behaviours. The four meta-categories consist of a total of 17 specific component behaviours, such as Clarifying, Supporting, Advocating change and External monitoring. In total, this part of the survey consists of 49 questions, all modified to address the current state of leadership at the respondent workplace. The second construct is measured in 18 questions related to three levels 1) how respondents use digital technologies in their daily work, 2) how the use has changed the daily practice, and 3) how the use has changed the way they work, communicate, and operate in the entire organization. The questions concern to what degree the use of digital technologies has developed new ways of organising and talking about daily practice. Item are designed as fixed-response format (Wilson, 2005) and responses are on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not relevant) to 5 (absolutely essential). A series of background questions of relevance for the different constructs are also asked. The instrument is available online and will be administered as an online self-administered questionnaire. In this pilot study, the survey was distributed to all school leaders in one municipality in the northern Sweden (N = 44 with a response rate of 90 %). As can be seen, the total number of school leaders in municipalities in this region is low, but the tests have been made covering the total number of respondents possible. As such, awareness of this challenge is kept in mind in terms of analysis and inferences possible by use of the data.Expected Outcomes: The possibilities for the results of the survey to be used as a basis for school development is discussed, as is the possibilities for the approach to be a way of conducting research, and thus also development work of relevance for school practice with the outspoken intention to improve the quality of the educational practice. Even if the data at the moment is not fully analyzed yet, there are some interesting trends in the material. For instance, due to the participant school leaders, Task-oriented and Relations-oriented leadership behaviours are more important than Change-oriented behaviours, when it comes to leading digitalization in school. There are also some interesting discrepancies between what is judged as important for their school organisations on one hand, and what is important in their leadership on the other. These trends seem to be of importance for strategic decisions about content for continous collaboration, and thereby for school development when it comes to digitalization in school. For the approach to be a collaboration form that provide genuine possibilities for research to be the scientific ground that educational quality should rest on, as is intended in the education act, there are a number of possibilities as well as challenges such as the inconsistency of the educational practice as such and the contextual boundaries of knowledge of what works and improve the quality of practice.
|
|
| 9. |
- Siljebo, Josef
(författare)
-
The policy instruments of digitalized school leadership practice: a Swedish example
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Education and involvement in precarious times. - Reykjavik : University of Iceland. - 9789935468222 ; , s. 178-179
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- One work task that face Nordic school leaders, not least during the precarious time of the pandemic, is digitalization in schools. This task is related both to the work activities of organizational change and improvement traditionally associated with the school leader role (Harris et al., 2003), and to the changing work activities that “the digital age” imposes on schools (Fischer et al., 2020). Political responses to digitalization in schools include developing notions such as “school leaders’ digital competence” and policy instruments that put the notions to work. For example, Nordic countries regularly and increasingly see national strategies and action plans regarding digitalization in schools.Present paper aims to contribute with a critical perspective regarding one Swedish policy instrument. The contribution may be particularly relevant for educational researchers interested in digitalized school leadership practice. The instrument is theoretically understood as (a) an active device (Lascoumes & Le Gales, 2007) that attempts to steer Swedish school leaders regarding digitalization in schools, and (b) a policy instrument in today’s digital education governance (Williamson, 2017).The instrument can be described as a school improvement intervention, created by Swedish National Agency of Education (SNAE), and called Leading Digitalization (LD). SNAE describes LD as a step-wise process tool and guide to, for example, superintendents and principals in leading digitalization in Swedish schools. The outcome of LD is that school leaders and teachers together formulate a concrete development plan. However, given what research on public policy instruments has concluded for many years, LD is not simply a guiding tool, but an active socio-technological device. Moreover, a device that contains abstract notions and steering of school leaders thinking and actions.However, working as a school leader, and relating the concrete work tasks of digitalization in schools to abstract political notions inscribed in policy instruments, leaves room for a process of translation. This translation process includes embodiment, agency and beliefs that impact the enactment (Freeman & Sturdy, 2015) of digitalized school leadership practice.The unique contribution of the study is a synthesis of (a) analyses of LD documents as policy inscriptions, (b) analyses of Swedish school leaders’ beliefs in an interview179study regarding LD, and analyses of the new inscriptions that the same school leaders have created in their own policy instruments (i.e., their LD development plans).
|
|
| 10. |
- Siljebo, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Through the Lens of Situated Learning and Levels of Scale : Theorizing Development of Remote Teaching and the Role of On-Site Facilitators
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Digital Social Research (JDSR). - : Umeå University. - 2003-1998. ; 4:2, s. 66-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this paper is to contribute to theoretical development within a field otherwise mostly characterized by empirical contributions, with a primary focus on the practice and perspectives of on-site facilitators. To theoretically understand the development and use of remote teaching, we focus on the interaction between systems of human activity in education and the relationships enacted in practice through their interaction, with a focus on on-site facilitators’ work. In doing so, we use the concept levels of scale in situated learning. Through levels of scale, we conceptualize the historical development of remote teaching as the large scale and the remote learning environment as the small scale. Integrating the levels of scale and tracing the historical development of remote teaching in Sweden into the enactments taking place in a classroom of modern language teaching is the concrete theoretical development that our aim entails.
|
|
