The Evolution of Distributed Leadership in a Change Laboratory in a Finnish Teacher Training School

• In Event: Change Laboratory Interventions as Collaborative Inquiry in Norwegian, Finnish, and U.S. Teacher Education/Leadership Programs

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes
Distributed leadership is viewed particularly important for enhancing communality and coordination of activities among multiple actors, such as teachers’ team learning (Bouwmans et al., 2017), multi-agency working (Hartley, 2009), to improve students’ learning and the quality of teaching. It can also be seen as pivotal for the expansive learning opportunities and the development of teacher education for the future (Aas, 2015; Douglas, 2012; Ho & Ng, 2017). The leading argument of our paper is that in order to better understand how distributed leadership is created and evolves, empirical, micro-level explorations are needed.
2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
Drawing from the theory of expansive learning (Engeström, 1987, 2014) and the Change Laboratory (CL) method (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013; Kerosuo et al., 2010), we report how distributed leadership is brought into being among teachers in a Finnish teacher training school subjected to a curriculum reform. As our research questions, we ask: How does a model for distributed leadership evolve in a CL intervention? And what kind of actions are needed to operationalize the model into practice?
3. Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
A series of seven (a 2.5 hour long), video-recorded CL meetings, which we facilitated in the teacher training school provided the primary data. We focused our analysis on an expansive learning action named modeling, where the CL participants make conscious efforts of “constructing an explicit, simplified model of a new idea that explains and offers a solution for the problematic situation” (Engeström, 1987, p. 322).
4. Data sources, evidence, object, or materials
The elementary school under study is among the oldest schools and referred to as the ‘flagship school of Finnish education’. The twelve participants of the CL represented class teachers, subject teachers, and special education teachers. A key characteristic is that these professional groups all have their own traditions and visions, which guide their teaching practices.
5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/points of view
During the CL process, a tangible artifact, a “Compass Model” for distributed leadership was created by the participants. The modelling progressed from tensions and conflicting views to the negotiation and formation of collective resolutions. The model was implemented to operationalize the epistemic learning actions into distributed leadership and transformation of the collective activity. The power of the new model is that it takes the teaching staff beyond their moment-to-moment individual leadership actions and functions as a tool for collective pedagogical leadership activity, i.e. distributed leadership.
6. Science or scholarly significance of the study or work
Our study expands the understanding of distributed leadership as a socially and materially mediated process consisting of a series of complex epistemic learning actions. Our study adds to the existing literature viewing distributed leadership a tension-laden and complex process requiring negotiation and formation of collective resolutions. It also offers new knowledge on how teachers can collectively create shared, mediating artifacts and operationalize their epistemic learning actions into transformation of work practices.

Word count: 494 words

Authors

• Anu Kajamaa, University of Helsinki

• Lasse Lipponen, University of Helsinki

• Sakari Hyrkkö, University of Helsinki