Development of an intervention framework for school improvement that is adaptive to cultural context

Abstract

The challenge of educational improvement, due mainly to the complexity of educational systems, is well-known. The aim of this study is to provide knowledge regarding the process of change within schools to better understand how it might depend on cultural context and the characteristics of individual schools. Based on interventions in four compulsory schools (6–15 years old students) in Iceland, the study uses both qualitative and quantitative data. The process of change was guided by a framework grounded in professional learning community principles and designed to be adaptive for cultural contexts as well as the interdependence of different factors of educational systems. Theories of drivers of change and indicators of schools as professional learning communities were used to understand cultural conditions within them. The main findings indicate that the change process in team-driven schools with relatively high levels of teacher collaboration and engagement works well in the framework. By contrast, the change process seemed restrained in the profession-driven and problem-driven schools characterised by either a high level of teacher autonomy and lack of collaboration or engagement in solving several generic problems. The study provided valuable insights regarding the complexity of facilitating change, particularly, the importance of identifying main drivers of change affecting an intervention process at the initiation stage.

Keywords

Drivers for change framework for changes professional learning community school improvement school–university collaboration

Introduction

The literature on educational improvement emphasises the complexity of educational settings as well as the interdependency of their different components (Hopkins et al., 2014). Capacity-building, inquiry-oriented practice, professional collaboration and data-driven decisions are considered central themes in sustainable school improvement (Blossing et al., 2015; Fullan, 2016; Robinson, 2018; Schildkamp et al., 2012). This is reflected in theories about the school as a professional learning community (PLC) (Stoll et al., 2006) as a mean to enhance professional learning (Muijs et al., 2014; Stoll, 2020) and student outcomes (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Sigurðardóttir, 2010).

The main aim of this study was to provide knowledge regarding the process of change within schools to better understand how it might depend on cultural context and the characteristics of individual schools. The importance of school culture for successful teaching and learning has long been recognised (Sarason, 1971; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000), but there is a need for further knowledge to promote successful change and development in schools as organisations. This study exemplifies types of cultures as distinctive drivers for change, as well as identifying factors inherent in professional learning communities (PLCs). These are steps taken to increase our understanding of the process of change at school level.

This paper describes the use of a framework that was developed to facilitate school improvement based on PLCs principles, that is, the BMB framework (in Icelandic Bera Meira út Býtum), which means gaining more from professional work. The BMB school development framework was assumed by the research team to be adaptive for cultural contexts and for the interdependence of different systemic factors as emphasised in the literature (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Hopkins et al., 2014). A partnership was established between research teamers at the School of Education, University of Iceland, and compulsory schools in three municipalities. A total of 13 schools were surveyed regarding PLC. Out of the 13 schools, four schools also participated in the intervention programme. The four intervention schools decided upon development projects with the assistance of advisers from the research team. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected concerning the intervention. The following question guided the study:

How does the improvement process in schools depend on cultural context?

The cultural context is conceptualised in types of drivers of change (Blossing et al., 2015) as well as schools as professional learning communities (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Gísladóttir et al., 2019).

Theoretical context

Educational improvement

Literature on educational improvement emphasises the complexity of educational systems as well as the interdependency of their different components and levels (e.g. Fullan, 2016; Hatch, 2021; Hopkins et al., 2014). A systemic approach to change and improvement emphasises the incorporation of all system levels both within and outside of schools as well as facilitating the coherence of entities that influence teaching and learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Reierson & Becker, 2021). Moreover, these approaches stress teacher leadership and professional learning in the given context (Harris & Jones, 2018).

According to Hopkins et al. (2014), the main challenge is two-fold: to understand how coherence is established between system levels and how different components affect the improvement process that is dependent upon cultural and social contexts. This perspective aligns with Scott’s (2013) ‘cultural-cognitive systems’ theory, claiming that institutions are systems in which cultural-cognitive elements are central. These elements influence the nature of social reality and processes that operate at different levels.

Collaboration and professional discussions are the best ways to achieve coherence, according to Robinson et al. (2017). The OECD states a similar emphasis in Education Policy Outlook 2019 concerning school improvement:

Policy developments focused on developing learning environments seem to work best and are better received when they encourage collaboration across administrative levels or between institutions. Initiatives aiming to improve the quality of teachers and school leaders that work well also focus on collaboration, mentoring and dialogue. (OECD, 2019, p. 24)

A recent Icelandic study revealed that coherence in policy and school development was more apparent when local authorities emphasised a PLC approach for decisions regarding policy issues and methods for implementation (Þórsdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2020). Teachers were included in decision-making, and communication between school and school-district leaders was based on professional discussion and mutual trust to a greater extent than in the other municipalities where policy decisions were made by politicians or at the central district office for schools.

Another dimension of sustainable school improvement is acknowledging the importance of professionals’ roles, as highlighted by scholars such as Fullan and Hargreaves (2016), Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018), King (2019) and Robinson (2018). They also claimed that school change and development must be based on self-improvement activities along with strategic support by policy and central-office professionals. In line with that, Greany (2014) suggested four main principles that characterise self-improving school systems: (1) teachers and schools are responsible for their own improvement; (2) teachers and schools learn from each other and from research so that effective practice spreads; (3) the best schools and leaders extend their reach across other schools so that all schools improve; and (4) government intervention is minimised.

As widely established, one of the main tasks of school leaders is to motivate teachers and other staff. Kaplan and Owings (2015) stated, ‘everyone agrees that leadership does not occur in a vacuum. . . [leaders] . . .must work with people . . . to accomplish a task’ (p. 35). Furthermore, Sergiovanni (2009) articulated that the aim of leadership is to transform an organisation into an institution where purpose is built into structures based on infused values with the goal of ‘transforming school members from neutral participants to committed followers’ (p. 4). Relationships between school leaders and teachers are, for that reason, of vital importance when establishing followership, with trust, shared purposes, reflective thinking and collaborative decision-making. These are crucial elements in constructive relations in schools (Supovitz & Tognatta, 2013). Fix et al. (2021) highlighted that context-conscious leadership creates a balance between leadership decisions, policy and teachers’ actions. Louis et al. (2010) agreed and claimed that effective leadership practices include an emphasis on collective leadership, the extensive influence of staff and the strong support of district leaders. King (2019) stated that there is substantial evidence that supports the significance of this emphasis:

. . . the importance of teachers engaging in professional learning focused on collaborative discourse related to teaching and learning, thus empowering teachers to take ownership of their own practice and narrow the values-practice gap related to their moral purpose of teaching and learning. (p. 170)

However, Kools and Stoll (2016, p. 30) claimed that schools generally require ‘guidance around the content of shared vision’ as well as a need ‘to further clarify teacher and school leader professionalism’, which includes promoting engagement in networked learning and collaboration across boundaries. Moreover, Brown and Greany (2018) observed that the emphasis on self-improvement in schools and school systems requires evidence-based data and that schools generally need to ensure that ‘school-level change is grounded within a research base’ (p. 18). Each school must find its own way concerning processes of development due to different structures and organisational cultures, and so-called best practices may not be best for a particular context (Blossing et al., 2015; Sigurðardóttir, 2019).

School improvement and cultural context

Grasping the characteristics of cultural contexts in schools and, especially, how these might affect improvement processes is a complicated endeavour. Cultural characteristics are often invisible and rooted in the community beyond the school as well as in communication patterns among staff. To identify characteristics of a cultural context, two conceptualisations are of interest: drivers of change and the level of a school as a PLC.

Blossing et al. (2015) identified six types of school cultures that they considered meaningful drivers regarding improvement processes:

Idea-driven school – driven by the power of improvement ideas; a flow of new ideas is ensured.

Plan-driven – the process is driven by systematic planning.

Model-driven – the process follows concrete models or packages.

Problem-driven – the focus is on solving problems before an improvement process can flow.

Profession-driven – this relies on teacher autonomy and individual teachers as drivers for change.

Team-driven – collaborative and creative teams drive the improvement process.

These different drivers affect how teachers and school leaders organise their work and shape teachers’ roles not only in the classroom but also in collegial situations. Drivers develop through a school’s history and daily practices. They contribute to an understanding of the inner logic of the organisational change processes – an understanding of how teachers and school leaders make sense of daily practices.

The image of schools as professional learning communities (PLCs) is well-known in the literature and has been central to school improvement activities for the past few decades (Harris & Jones, 2018; Kools & Stoll, 2016). There is, however, little agreement in the literature on a single definition of a PLC (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Kools & Stoll, 2016). Stoll et al. (2006) viewed a PLC as a group of people that share an interest and vision for constantly improving their practice for enhanced outcomes for their students. Similarly, DuFour (2004) claimed that a PLC involves a process that includes the empowerment of teachers and other staff in order to reflect on practice and take steps towards improvement.

Despite the spread and popularity of the conception of a PLC, no single model or guidelines exist to use as a reference regarding ideal practices as means to facilitate the desired effects (Hairon et al., 2017; Lomos et al., 2011). Recent literature, however, strongly suggests that it is worthwhile for schools to develop PLCs since there are numerous indicators claiming that they positively affect teaching practices and students’ academic outcomes (Burns et al., 2018; Doğan & Adams, 2018. The key activity in learning communities in schools is based on inquiry-oriented practices and professional collaboration (Boylan & Demack, 2018; Muijs et al., 2014), with the fundamental goal of improving the school at the same time the teachers’ professional knowledge and skills are enhanced (Fullan et al., 2014). School leaders play a central role as they influence both what teachers do in professional learning activities and how well they carry out those activities (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016).

Main components of the BMB framework

The BMB framework was developed based on the PLC propositions and literature on successful educational improvement (Cowan et al., 2012; Doğan & Adams, 2018; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Hopkins et al., 2014; Sigurðardóttir, 2019; Stoll et al., 2006). The framework rests on the assumption that facilitating change and development with expert guidance during a 2-year time frame reinforces the pillars of a PLC in the infrastructure of schools. Figure 1 provides an overview of the components in the framework.

Figure 1.

Overview of the main components of the BMB framework.

Five main components that are specified in the framework represent areas for development in schools and systems. It is essential that the five components be developed at all levels: the classroom, school, municipal and national levels. The components are grounded in the literature of school improvement as follows:

Coherence in policy from classroom to national level (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).

Professional leadership should be enhanced at all levels, aiming at improving classroom practices (Cowan et al., 2012; Fullan, 2016) with a focus on learning (Stoll, 2020).

Effective use of data, to feed into the improvement process and enhance professional learning (Bernhardt, 2016; Brown & Greany, 2018; Dimmock, 2019; Schildkamp et al., 2017).

Professional learning at all levels, both formal and informal, consistent with the policy (Boylan & Demack, 2018; Fullan, 2016).

Building relationships within and between schools (Harris & Jones, 2018; Stoll, 2020).

The BMB framework emphasised that individual schools should make decisions regarding improvement projects based on needs and interests. This was seen by the research team as a key element in connecting with the given culture as well as acknowledging the complexity of school development and the interdependence of different factors that might affect the process as well as the results. It was anticipated that the findings might indicate whether this is a useful framework for sustainable improvement, dynamic enough to capture the complexity of the system (Fullan, 2016), flexible enough to be adaptable to cultural contexts (Blossing et al., 2015) and suitable for enhancing a school’s capacity for learning (Stoll, 2020).

Method

Participating schools

In all, 13 schools in three municipalities in south-west Iceland were randomly selected to participate in a survey designed to identify indicators of PLC. Moreover, all 13 schools were invited to take part in the BMB intervention programme, and four volunteered; they are referred to hereafter as Schools A, B, C and D.

Intervention

This part of the study project consisted of a 2-year intervention in the four schools. The intervention actions were context-based (Hopkins et al., 2014) and conducted as an active school–university partnership (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2018). Decisions about improvement projects were made by school staff. The intention was to use the five main components described in Figure 1 as a frame of reference when working on the projects to establish coherence in aims and objectives between levels; professional leadership; critical inquiry into evidence; staff development relevant to the focus and teamwork and relationship building. The intervention comprised the following actions:

The formation of a steering group of three to five people chosen by the principal, who was also a member of the group. The steering group’s role was to lead the process in close collaboration with the BMB research team. The group’s first task was to choose an improvement project that was relevant and not too large in scope in the given context and in accordance with local policy.

Groups of teachers at grade or stage level were expected to form teams to develop their classroom practices to align with the selected topic. They were encouraged to use a variety of professional learning activities (see Murray, 2014), such as action research or lesson study.

The members of the four steering groups were scheduled to attend eight half-day professional development (PD) sessions. These revolved around the practice of leading change and development as well as the components of the BMB framework. An additional purpose was to build relationships between the participating schools and create a platform for sharing experience and knowledge.

One member from the BMB research group worked with the steering group in each school as an adviser as well as to serve as a critical friend, to enhance leadership, to provide guidance regarding the set objectives and to collect information.

Qualitative data – the intervention process

The data collection in the four intervention schools was based on interviews with the principals, recordings of the steering-group meetings and of teachers group meetings, as described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of collected qualitative data classified by schools – number and duration of meetings/interviews.

	School A		School B		School C		School D
	n	Min	n	Min	n	Min	n	Min
Individual interviews with school leaders	1	57	2	134	4	151	2	58
Steering-group meetings	2	105	2	124	1	67	10	254
Teachers’ team meetings			4	196	4	176
Teachers’ focus groups			1	56	1	33	1	33

The school leaders in the intervention schools were interviewed at the beginning and end of the project, and the interviews were recorded and transcribed. In addition, all meetings of researchers with steering groups were recorded and transcribed. At the end of the project, a group of teachers in each of the intervention schools was interviewed. All interviews were conducted by the researchers who administered the BMB project.

The purpose of collecting this qualitative data was to establish an understanding of each school’s context and to identify matters concerning the change process and, more precisely, the cultural characteristics of the intervention schools, such as leadership imperatives, main impediments and cultures of teaching and learning.

The collected data were analysed for each school with reference to the components in the BMB framework and drivers of change as described by Blossing et al. (2015).

Quantitative data – questionnaire survey

An online survey was administered in all 13 schools including the intervention schools. In all, 461 teachers and school leaders responded to the survey for a 69% response rate. For the purposes of this analysis, only responses from teachers were considered. The survey included 54 statements measured on a 6-point scale from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’ (Gísladóttir et al., 2019). In this paper, the emphasis is on evaluating readiness for improvement as reflected in the participants’ responses to statements related to the level of collaboration, the social climate that supports collaboration, the use of data and supportive leadership within their schools. These components are assumed to be indicators of a PLC and part of the BMB framework.

Participants were asked to estimate the level of collaboration in their schools by responding to statements such as ‘there is much collaboration within my school’. Item responses were summed, with a range from 0 to 25 (M = 13.8, SD = 4.3), where higher scores indicate more collaboration. The critical use of data was estimated with three statements, such as ‘teachers in this school use data to evaluate their teaching’. Item responses were summed, with a range from 0 to 15 (M = 8.1, SD = 3.0), where higher scores indicate increased use of data. A social climate that supports collaboration was evaluated with five statements, such as ‘I often try things in my own teaching that I learn from my co-workers’. Item responses were summed, with a range from 0 to 25 (M = 18.2, SD = 3.1), and higher scores indicate greater support for collaboration. Distributed and supportive leadership was evaluated with five statements, such as ‘In this school, teachers take part in discussions regarding the future vision of the school’. Item responses were summed, with a range from 0 to 25 (M = 15.8, SD = 4.5), where higher scores indicate more distributed and supportive leadership.

Findings

The findings are presented in three main sections. First, a short portrayal of the schools is provided to shed light on their main characteristics, context of leadership and emphasis on teaching and learning as well as areas of intervention contingent on selected improvement projects. The second section describes activities related to the improvement projects as well as elements that disclose drivers for change. The third section seeks to analyse each school’s readiness for improvement as reflected in indicators of a PLC.

Portrayal of the intervention schools

The first step in the project was to analyse significant characteristics of the four schools, such as years in operation, number of students, prime imperative for practice, context for leadership and teaching and learning culture as revealed through the meetings and interviews. These characteristics are summarised in Table 2 along with information about the selected area of intervention.

Table 2.

School characteristics and selected area of intervention.

	Main characteristics	Prime imperative	Context for leadership	Signs in culture regarding teaching and learning	Selected area of intervention
School A	About 60 years in operation, stabilised neighbourhood, stable number of students	Traditional, history of being innovative, commitment to quality	Newly recruited principal; experienced middle leaders	Relatively older teaching staff; high level of teacher autonomy; some work in teams	Dropped out of the project after the first year
School B	Relatively young school (15 years); growing number of students	Open-plan school, team-teaching; commitment to student well-being	Experienced leader: same principal since school was established	High level of teacher collaboration, ‘strong’ culture; young teaching staff	Structure and management of collaboration within and between teams
School C	New school (5–10 years) based on a merger of two older schools in stabilised neighbourhood	Not openly stated; still searching for a shared purpose after merging	Relatively new principal; weak structure of the management team	Two different teaching cultures, relatively older teaching staff; two school sites	Team-teaching
School D	Newly established and rapidly growing number of students	Forming of purpose	New but experienced principal; some experience among middle leaders	Young culture; low level of cohesiveness; two school sites	Use of iPads in teaching and learning

All four schools serve 10 cohorts, grades 1–10 (6–15-year-old students), but other characteristics, such as years in operation and teaching culture, differ.

School A dropped out after the first year. It was established in the 1970s as a progressive school and relies on highly skilled professionals, some of whom are still teaching while others have recently retired. There is a strong culture of teacher autonomy in this school. Team-teaching was the dominant arrangement at the primary grades.

School B is an open-plan model organised as a team-teaching school. The school was designed as such when it was established around the new millennium. The current principal took part in the design process and is committed to this emphasis, which was decided upon when the school was established. Despite a rapidly growing number of students, there is relatively good stability in the teaching force. The average staff age is relatively low. Many developmental projects are organised within the school, but the steering group expressed that greater coherence between the many ongoing projects within the school was needed; therefore, they chose to work on that.

School C is based on a merger of two older, traditional schools shortly after the economic crisis in 2008, which was strongly protested by the teachers and the parents. The school operates as two detached campuses with older buildings. There are strong signs of two different teaching cultures among the teachers as well as the leadership team. The principal repeatedly stressed his enthusiasm about the project but struggled to consolidate others on the leadership team to engage with the project. At the beginning of the project, the steering team decided to develop team-teaching at both sites in the school.

In School D, the newly recruited principal is the second in the brief history of the school. He has struggled to find classroom space for the rapidly growing number of students. In alignment with a policy imperative of the municipality stressing IT in schools, the steering group decided on the use of iPads in a selected year group as a developmental project.

The intervention process and drivers for change

As intended, the intervention process was different in each school. Regarding the five components of the BMB framework (Figure 1), it can be said that all four schools took notice of the local policy when deciding on a topic for improvement, and they all made efforts to enhance the leadership capacity of the steering team, even though only Schools B and D succeeded in their attempts. Despite encouragement from the research team, none of the schools improved their use of data during this period. School B was also the only one that arranged professional development activities (although these were not linked specifically to the project) for all staff together with neighbouring schools during the intervention period. Regarding the fifth component of building relationships, Schools C and D attempted to establish teachers’ teams, and School B aimed to reinforce relationships and coherence between the teams that were already in place. Based on the collected data, the research team identified indicators of main drivers for change as defined by Blossing et al. (2015).

Profession-driven schools

Two of the four schools (A and C) seem primarily profession-driven as a high level of teacher autonomy was apparent in both. At the first meeting with the steering group for School A, discussions included statements such as ‘teachers’ professionalism is trusted in this school’ and ‘they [the teachers] are not told what to do’. Moreover, one of the department heads stated, ‘Our first obligation concerns the teaching, and then [if we have time] we can take part in improvement work’. In School C, the steering group immediately began discussing the different culture in two of their work sites and the principal said that they were continuously looking for ‘common threads’ and dealing with consequences of the merger. Based on this information, we regard School C as also problem-driven.

In both these schools (A and C), heavy workloads and lack of time were stressed at the first meetings. The school principal and the assistant principal in School A both expressed their satisfaction and willingness to take part in the project in the beginning, and other leaders agreed. However, at the second meeting in School A, the steering group was very sceptical about the project and did not see how the framework was helpful – they did not see what they would ‘get out of it’. Ideas suggested by the researcher, such as conducting action research in the form of a lesson study, also appeared to be threatening. The steering group then decided to withdraw the school from the project. School C, by contrast, continued its participation in the project in spite of obstacles, as an example, many members of the steering group did not find time to meet with the BMB research group and only attended the initial meeting where they agreed to participate in the project. However, it was only at the very end of the project that the principal acknowledged that the teaching staff did not approve of the ideas behind the project: ‘It is not enough to have two nice ladies from the university claiming this is a good idea’, she explained. The teachers were not committed to developing team-teaching even though the leaders in the school decided upon team-teaching as an improvement area at the beginning. In the second year of the 2-years intervention project, two newly graduated teachers were recruited to the school. They had learned about team-teaching during their academic studies and were willing to work as a team with one cohort of students and were well-supported by the principal. When they presented their work to the other teachers in the school, they claimed it was ‘well received’ by their colleagues.

Team-driven school

We categorised one of the schools (B) as primarily team-driven. It is organised in teams that are responsible for groups of students, for example team responsible for one cohort or one grade level. The steering group decided to create greater coherence between all the teams in the school and the school leaders by creating a web-based scheme to collectively share main decisions made at team meetings. Teachers who participated in a focus-group interview claimed that they did not know much about the project but acknowledged that they were familiar with the scheme, asking; ‘Oh, was that part of this project’ and recognising its advantages.

The steering group was active in leading the project in School B, with a relatively high level of commitment and involvement of its members. For example, their attendance at steering-group meetings and BMB networking meetings was better than that of members from the other schools. The principal in this school had more years of experience than the leaders of the other schools. The teachers who participated in the focus groups valued teamwork as a way to reduce their workloads – ‘You share the responsibility’ – but they complained about a lack of information about different school issues and the lack of visibility of the leaders. They were pleased with multiple and well-organised professional learning opportunities (not linked with BMB) that included networking between schools in the municipality. This school also demonstrated signs of a plan-driven school as there were many carefully planned developmental projects in operation at the same time.

Problem-driven school

We consider School D as problem-driven because the leaders were constantly dealing with issues related to the rapidly growing number of students. The principal was the leader of the steering group and the main contact person for the adviser and arranged the meetings. The group discussed the selection of a developmental project, its main objectives, delimitation, priorities, time frame, scope, involvement and so forth. Between meetings, the participating teachers worked on the selected project. The selection of the developmental project was not discussed widely with the faculty, but the steering group considered the project choice as sensible and practical in the given context. The level of commitment on behalf of the steering group and the teachers at the applicable grade level was moderate, meaning that they did not demonstrate a strong desire for the project and were not especially proactive concerning the intervention process. The steering group did not meet to advance the intervention without a push from the adviser. Accordingly, the activities of the teachers were, to a large extent, based on their motivation and personal initiatives regarding scope and emphasis in the use of iPads in learning projects for their students. The role of the adviser was, therefore, tailored more towards proactive actions than consulting and providing guidance by means of a critical friendship. In the interview at the end of the project, one of the teachers said, ‘It was different from what we expected . . . but we noticed that they [the leaders] were using [materials or ideas] from the project’. Another teacher said that participating in a network session at the end of the second year of the BMB project was a turning point: ‘I was inspired, that was the last [piece of the] puzzle I needed to understand the project’.

A summary of the findings from our qualitative data is presented in Table 3, illustrates some of the main characteristics of the intervention process, including actions taken by the principals, the steering group, the involvements of the teachers and several activities concerning the improvement projects.

Table 3.

Leadership, intervention activities and drivers for change.

	Action of principals	Steering group	Involvement of teachers in the project	Intervention programme – main activities	Drivers for change
School A	Struggled to get the project accepted	Was established but non-operational	Did not happen	No activities	Profession- driven
School B	Facilitated general acceptance of the project – close collaboration of the main leaders	Well-structured work: some members of the team provided leadership in the subgroup	Relatively high level of teacher involvement	A scheme was developed regarding structure and management of collaboration within and between teams	Team-driven and plan-driven
School C	Struggled to get the project accepted	The team was not established despite attempts by the principal	Two new teachers participated	The main contact worked primarily with the two new teachers regarding team-teaching	Profession-driven but also problem-driven
School D	Worked with middle leaders regarding the acceptance of the project	Some planning and leadership in restricted area	Some involvement of teachers at one grade level	Plan was developed regarding the use of iPads in teaching and implemented at one grade level	Problem-driven and profession- driven

School readiness as reflected in indicators of a PLC

To gain some idea about school readiness for improvement, the questionnaire survey that was conducted among teachers and leaders in the 13 schools was analysed. The focus was on evaluating indicators of a PLC within the schools, specifically the level of collaboration and distributed and supportive leadership, as well as the use of data and the extent to which the social climate within the school’s supported collaboration. The mean and standard deviation of indicators of a PLC are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Mean and standard deviation of indicators of a PLC by school.

Schools	Critical use of data	Social climate that supports collaboration	Collaboration	Distributed supportive leadership
Schools	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	Distributed supportive leadership
School A	9.0 (2.1)	18.7 (2.3)	13.5 (3.6)	16.8 (2.7)
School B	8.5 (3.3)	19.3 (2.4)	17.8 (4.5)	16.6 (3.4)
School C	8.3 (2.9)	19.7 (3.0)	13.4 (2.9)	18.1 (4.1)
School D	8.0 (3.4)	17.4 (2.7)	13.1 (3.5)	15.3 (4.0)
Other schools	8.1 (3.0)	18.3 (3.2)	13.8 (4.1)	15.0 (5.1)

As Table 4 shows, the mean levels of collaboration were similar among the schools except for School B, where analysis of variance shows that participants reported significantly higher levels of collaboration, F(4,286) = 11.4, p < .001, than in the other schools. There was also a significant difference between schools concerning the mean levels of social support for collaboration, F(3,344) = 4.18, p = .003, where participants reported significantly less support for collaboration in School D than in both Schools B (p = .037) and C (p = .018). However, the mean difference between the schools concerning the critical use of data and supportive leadership was non-significant.

Discussion and implications

The main aim of this study was to provide knowledge on a process of change in schools to better understand how this might depend on the cultural context and characteristics of schools as reflected in different drivers for change and indicators of a PLC. In the first part, the process of change in these four intervention schools is discussed, in relation to the identified drivers for change, and with regard to indicators of a PLC as measured in a survey. The working process and usefulness of the BMB framework is discussed in the second part.

Change processes and cultural context

Two frames of reference were used to consider cultural characteristics in our attempt to understand the link between the change process and cultural context. First, the conception of Blossing et al. (2015) of drivers of change was seen as useful to provide an understanding of the inner logic of the intervention schools, that is of how teachers and school leaders make sense of daily practices. Second, the level of PLC in the intervention schools in comparison with the other schools provided insights regarding internal conditions and their readiness for change and development.

Based on the conception of Blossing et al. (2015), School B was the only team-driven school, and the internal conditions within this school seemed to work quite well with the BMB approach. This is not surprising when considering the literature on successful school improvement as articulated by scholars like Robinson et al. (2017) and Fullan (2016). According to them, teams are regarded as key units for enhancing reflective discussions and generating new ideas and professional learning. The change process in School B was characterised by team leadership and a high level of involvement and collaboration of teachers. The intervention project was also generally well accepted within the school.

By contrast, the change process was more restrained in profession-driven and problem-driven schools such as Schools A, C and D. Profession-driven schools have high teacher autonomy and individual teachers as drivers for change, and the focus in problem-driven schools is on solving problems before improvement can take place. Team leadership and commitment towards working on the improvement projects was, therefore, deficient in these schools. As Fix et al. (2021) highlighted, teacher leadership and autonomy are essential for all school improvement, but a collective sense-making must be part of it. Autonomy without collective sense-making will lead to a low level of engagement and work against the sustainability of the innovation. Moreover, this sense-making element, along with solving problems before engaging in change projects, might explain why School A dropped out of the project, why School C never found its place due to issues concerning amalgamation and why School D was impeded by issues surrounding its rapid growth in the number of students. This also suggests that a greater focus is needed in the beginning of the project regarding the selection of an area of intervention, innovation projects and ownership.

To examine the level of a PLC indicates a school’s readiness for change (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Sigurðardóttir, 2010) and supplements the insights based on the Blossing et al. (2015) classification. The assumption is that schools with a high level of PLC would easily adapt desirable improvement projects to their working processes. This part of the study revealed that levels of collaboration were similar among the schools, except for School B, where collaboration scored higher than in the other schools. In addition, social support for collaboration was significantly higher in Schools B and C compared to the other schools. Accordingly, readiness for change seemed higher in School B than in the other schools. It is though interesting to note that the questionnaire aspect of the study did not reveal large differences between the schools, suggesting that the questionnaire needs to be developed further. It should though be noted that measuring the status of a PLC can be problematic, due to the complexity of the term, as recognised by Hairon et al. (2017). Nevertheless, the internal conditions for change seem best in the school identified as team-driven (School B) with relatively more developed PLC in comparison with the other schools.

Revising the BMB framework

One of the major purposes of the BMB framework was to contribute to the challenge of creating a process for change that is dynamic enough to adapt to the context and complexity of schools, as pointed out by scholars such as Fullan (2016) and Hopkins et al. (2014). The OECD (2019) suggestions were also followed as mentoring and dialogue between institutions was facilitated. Generally, the BMB framework was not as adaptive for cultural change as expected. This study, however, does not provide enough information to evaluate all the advantages and disadvantages of the framework; rather, it suggests amendments to the working method during the intervention. It was though obvious that some of the components in the BMB framework turned out to be more challenging to implement than other. Building relationships and provide appropriate opportunities for professional learning seemed to be adapted in the schools’ practices than using and reflecting on data. This is coherent with Dimmock (2019) that claims that teachers are often unwilling to rely on evidence when taking decisions for their practice.

In the initial phase of the intervention, both school leaders and teachers accepted the framework as a sensible guide, but when the innovation projects challenged regular practices, it created resistance towards and detachment from the project. The BMB framework rested on the assumption that the improvement projects would connect with the given culture and secure motivation and commitment. In hindsight, too little time was devoted to the selection of the improvement projects to enhance commitment and ownership. This is an important element to be considered when revising the intervention process.

The intention was to create a knowledge community among the principals, teachers and researchers, as suggested by Sigurðardóttir et al. (2018). It seemed to have succeeded to some extent, but more time should have been devoted to discussions within the schools. In some of the intervention schools, it seemed that several of the teachers did not fully comprehend the purpose of the BMB project and, thereby, did not take advantage of the benefits of the project. The intervention projects were intended to be in areas that were in need of change, irrespective of the BMB project. The integration with regular practices was, accordingly, not as successful as expected. This is another element to consider when revising the intervention process.

In addition to the above, several other elements also need reconsideration when revising the BMB framework. The intervention period was likely too short as well as the time with the advisers in the schools, but facilitating change takes time, as frequently noted in the literature. The role of the advisers can also be enhanced but creating commitment and empowerment is a challenge to be improved with more training and experience. Moreover, the collection of the quantitative data needs refinement, and the questionnaire that was developed for estimating levels of a PLC did not capture internal conditions in the schools as well as expected.

Despite deficiencies in the BMB framework, the study project provided important insights regarding the complexity of facilitating change, especially the importance of identifying main drivers of change in the initial phase, affecting the intervention process that follows. A thorough diagnosis of drivers of change provides important insights that influence the beginning steps in the identification and selection of improvement projects. Internal conditions in a team driven culture seem to work quite well with the original BMB approach, but in profession-driven and problem-driven conditions a different emphasis is needed. In a profession driven culture it seems more sensible to emphasise the selection of a few improvement projects that are small in scope and based on needs and aspirations of small groups of teachers. That emphasis seems feasible to facilitate commitment and empower selected parts of teachers. Moreover, it can facilitate small scale changes and prepare the ground for a more team driven culture. On the other hand, in problem driven conditions, a focus should be put on solving the given problems before engaging in an improvement process as in the BMB framework.

This study did not provide information regarding actions concerning other types of conditions and drivers as identified by Blossing et al. (2015), but that gap may be filled by future research of the BMB-programme. Stoll (2020) reminds that creating a capacity for learning and improvement is critical, cumbersome and time consuming, that is something we must accept as scholars interested in developing an applicable and dynamic model to facilitate improvement in schools.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to thank teachers and leaders in all the schools that participated in this study project.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the University of Iceland Research Fund.

References

Bernhardt

V. L.

(2016). Data, data everywhere: Bringing all the data together for continuous school improvement. Routledge.

Blossing

Nyen

Söderström

Tønder

A. H.

(2015). Local drivers for improvements capacity. Six types of school organisations. Springer.

Boylan

Demack

(2018). Innovation, evaluation design and typologies of professional learning. Educational Researcher, 60(3), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1493352

Brown

Greany

(2018). The evidence-informed school system in England: Where should school leaders be focusing their efforts? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1270330

Burns

M. K.

Naughton

M. R.

Preast

J. L.

Wang

Gordon

R. L.

Robb

Smith

M. L.

(2018). Factors of professional learning community implementation and effect on student achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 28, 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2017.1385396

Buttram

J. L.

Farley-Ripple

E. N.

(2016). The role of principals in professional learning communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1039136

Cowan

Joyner

Beckwith

(2012). Getting serious about the system: A field book for district and school leaders. Corwin Press.

Dimmock

(2019). Leading research-informed practice in schools. In Godfrey

Brown

(Eds.), An ecosystem for research-engaged schools (pp. 56–72). Routledge.

Doğan

Adams

(2018). Effect of professional learning communities on teachers and students: Reporting updated results and raising questions about research design. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 634–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1500921

10.

DuFour

(2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A, 61(8), 6–11.

11.

Fix

G. M.

Rikkerink

Ritzen

H. T. M.

Pieters

J. M.

Kuiper

W. A. J. M.

(2021). Learning within sustainable educational innovation: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and leadership practice. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09410-2

12.

Fullan

(2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

13.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(2016). Bringing the profession back in: Call to action. Learning Forward.

14.

Fullan

Hord

S. M.

Von Frank

(Eds.). (2014). Reach the highest standard in professional learning: Implementation. Corwin Press.

15.

Fullan

Quinn

(2016). Coherence. The right drivers in action for schools, districts and systems. Corwin Press.

16.

Gísladóttir

Pálsdóttir

Sigurðardóttir

A. K.

Svanbjörnsdóttir

(2019). Mat á stöðu faglegs lærdómssamfélags í grunnskóla: Þróun mælitækis. [Evaluating the level of a professional learning community in a school. Development of an instrument]. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2019/ryn/15.pdf

17.

Greany

(2014). Are we nearly there yet? Progress, issues and possible next steps for a self-improving school system. IOE Press.

18.

Hairon

Goh

J. W. P.

Chua

C. S. K.

Wang

L. Y.

(2017). A research agenda for professional learning communities: Moving forward. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1055861

19.

Hargreaves

O’Connor

M. T.

(2018). Collaborative professionalism. When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press.

20.

Harris

Jones

(2018). Leading schools as learning organizations. School Leadership and Management, 38(4), 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1483553

21.

Hatch

(2021). The education we need for a future we can’t predict. Corwin.

22.

Hopkins

Stringfield

Harris

Stoll

Mackay

(2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

23.

Kaplan

L. S.

Owings

W. A.

(2015). Introduction to the principalship: Theory to practice. Routledge.

24.

King

(2019). Professional learning: Empowering teachers? Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1580849

25.

Kools

Stoll

(2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.

26.

Lomos

Hofman

R. H.

Bosker

R. J.

(2011). Professional communities and student achievement – A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.550467

27.

Louis

K. S.

Leithwood

Wahlstrom

K. L.

Anderson

S. E.

Michlin

Mascall

(2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning (Vol. 42). Wallace Foundation.

28.

Muijs

Kyriakides

van der Werf

Creemers

Timperley

Earl

(2014). State of the art – Teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451

29.

Murray

(2014). Designing and implementing effective professional learning. Corwin Press.

30.

OECD. (2019). Education policy outlook 2019: Working together to help students achieve their potential. Author.

31.

Reierson

C. A.

Becker

S. R.

(2021). Coherent school improvement: Integrating outcomes-based assessment and trauma-informed practice. Improving Schools, 24, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480220953640

32.

Robinson

Bendikson

Mcnaughton

Wilson

Zhu

(2017). Joining the dots: The challenge of creating coherent school improvement. Teachers College Record, 119(8), 1–44.

33.

Robinson

V. M.

(2018). Reduce change to increase improvement. Corwin Press.

34.

Sarason

S. B.

(1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Allyn and Bacon Inc.

35.

Schildkamp

Ehren

Lai

M. K.

(2012). Editorial article for the special issue on data-based decision making around the world: From policy to practice to results. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.652122

36.

Schildkamp

Poortman

Luyten

Ebbeler

(2017). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901

37.

Scott

W. R.

(2013). Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE publication.

38.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(2009). The principalship: A reflective practice approach (6th ed.). Pearson.

39.

Sigurðardóttir

A. K.

(2010). Professional learning community in relation to school effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.508904

40.

Sigurðardóttir

A. K.

(2019). PISA – Hvað svo? Nokkur leiðarstef um innleiðingu menntaumbóta [What after PISA? A few guiding lines for implementation of educational improvements]. Sérrit Netlu: Alþjóðlegar menntakannanir. http://netla.hi.is/serrit/2019/altjodlegar_menntakannanir/04.pdf

41.

Sigurðardóttir

A. K.

Morris

Skoglund

Tudjman

(2018). Knowledge partnerships between schools and universities: Modelling the process of connection and relations. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 14(4), 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426417x14872517690770

42.

Stoll

(2020). Creating capacity for learning: Are we there yet? Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09394-z

43.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

Wallace

Thomas

(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

44.

Supovitz

J. A.

Tognatta

(2013). The impact of distributed leadership on collaborative team decision making. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.810274

45.

Teddlie

Reynolds

(2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. Falmer Press.

46.

Þórsdóttir

H. S.

Sigurðardóttir

A. K.

(2020). Samvirkni og samvinna í þróunar- og umbótastarfi [Coherence and collaboration in school development and system improvement]. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. https://doi.org/10.24270/netla.2020.2