Revealing the balancing act of vertical and shared leadership in Teacher Design Teams

Abstract Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) are professional learning communities in which teachers collaborate to (re)design educational materials. Although studies have indicated that leadership is vital for TDTs’ functioning, providing adequate leadership is challenging. Both shared and vertical leadership are needed, and how to combine them is not obvious. TDT participants and coaches might benefit from insight into what shared and vertical leadership look like in practice. In this study, we monitored two TDTs that used a stepwise method that integrates shared and vertical leadership. Findings reveal that combining shared and vertical leadership in TDTs is possible, but remains a challenging balancing act.

[1]  J. V. van Driel,et al.  Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research , 2012 .

[2]  Jay B. Carson,et al.  Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance , 2007, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[3]  Stephen J. Zaccaro,et al.  The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships , 2014 .

[4]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Advancing perspectives of sustainability and large-scale implementation of design teams in Ghana's polytechnics: Issues and opportunities , 2012 .

[5]  Hilda Borko,et al.  Facilitating Video-Based Professional Development: Planning and Orchestrating Productive Discussions , 2014 .

[6]  Julia E. Hoch.  Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity , 2012, Journal of business and psychology.

[7]  Jay Paredes Scribner,et al.  Teacher Teams and Distributed Leadership: A Study of Group Discourse and Collaboration , 2007 .

[8]  Georgios S. Gorozidis,et al.  Teachers'motivation to participate in training and to implement innovations , 2014 .

[9]  Louise Stoll,et al.  Connecting Learning Communities: Capacity Building for Systemic Change , 2010 .

[10]  Chloé Meredith,et al.  Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review , 2017 .

[11]  James D. Slotta,et al.  Teachers as participatory designers: two case studies with technology-enhanced learning environments , 2015 .

[12]  Ashley Braganza,et al.  Do vertical and shared leadership need each other in change management , 2016 .

[13]  Eva Kyndt,et al.  Teacher collaboration: A systematic review , 2015 .

[14]  Jeroen Imants,et al.  Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams , 2010 .

[15]  M. G. Roes,et al.  Professionele ontwikkeling van leraren , 1996 .

[16]  Amanda Datnow,et al.  Co-constructing distributed leadership: district and school connections in data-driven decision-making , 2009 .

[17]  Cindy Louise Poortman,et al.  A qualitative analysis of teacher design teams: In-depth insights into their process and links with their outcomes , 2017 .

[18]  R. Wesselink,et al.  Fostering teachers' team learning : An interplay between transformational leadership and participative decision-making? , 2017 .

[19]  T. Guskey.  Professional Development and Teacher Change , 2002 .

[20]  Shawn M. Bergman,et al.  The Shared Leadership Process in Decision-Making Teams , 2012, The Journal of social psychology.

[21]  G. Yukl,et al.  Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention , 2012 .

[22]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Teacher design in teams as a professional development arrangement for developing technology integration knowledge and skills of science teachers in Tanzania , 2014, Education and Information Technologies.

[23]  W. Admiraal,et al.  Affordances of teacher professional learning in secondary schools , 2016 .

[24]  C. Pearce.  The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work , 2004, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[25]  Joke Voogt,et al.  The Teacher as Re-Designer of Technology Integrated Activities for an Early Literacy Curriculum , 2013 .

[26]  Thomas D. Taber,et al.  A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research , 2002 .

[27]  Jim Highsmith.  Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products , 2009 .

[28]  M. Wallace,et al.  Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature , 2006 .

[29]  R. Wageman.  Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams , 1997 .

[30]  R. Wageman.  How Leaders Foster Self-Managing Team Effectiveness: Design Choices Versus Hands-on Coaching , 2001 .

[31]  Yael Kali,et al.  Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs , 2014 .

[32]  Degrees of distribution: towards an understanding of variations in the nature of distributed leadership in schools , 2007 .

[33]  Louis M. Gomez,et al.  Getting Ideas into Action: Building Networked Improvement Communities in Education , 2010 .

[34]  Vicki A. Vescio,et al.  A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning , 2008 .

[35]  Kim Schildkamp,et al.  Alternative quality standards in qualitative research? , 2012 .

[36]  Jo Tondeur,et al.  Teacher design teams as a strategy for professional development: the role of the facilitator , 2016, Teacher Learning Through Teacher Teams.

[37]  J. Voogt,et al.  Teacher Learning in Collaborative Curriculum Design. , 2011 .

[38]  Ingrid Carlgren,et al.  Professionalism and Teachers as Designers. , 1999 .

[39]  J. Voogt,et al.  Updating polytechnic teachers’ knowledge and skills through teacher design teams in Ghana , 2012 .

[40]  J. Vanhoof,et al.  Teacher collaboration on the use of pupil learning outcome data: A rich environment for professional learning? , 2016 .

[41]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Collaborative Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: What can We Learn from Teacher Talk? , 2016, TechTrends.

[42]  David F. Elloy.  Superleader Behaviors And Self-Managed Work Teams: Perceptions Of Supervisory Behaviors, Satisfaction With Growth, And Team Functions , 2011 .

[43]  Cindy Louise Poortman,et al.  Understanding teacher design teams - A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework , 2015 .

[44]  Adam Handelzalts,et al.  Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams , 2009 .

[45]  Ilana Seidel Horn,et al.  Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and Resources for Professional Learning in Teachers’ Workplace Interactions , 2010 .

[46]  R. Hofman,et al.  Effective Teacher Professionalization in Networks , 2010 .

[47]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. , 2002 .

[48]  J. Voogt,et al.  Teacher involvement in curriculum design: need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise , 2014 .

[49]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  What Happens When Teachers Design Educational Technology? The Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2005 .

[50]  Joke Voogt,et al.  Fostering teachers' design expertise in teacher design teams: conducive design and support activities , 2015 .

[51]  P. Brouwer.  Collaboration in teacher teams , 2006 .

[52]  Evaluating effective school improvement: Case studies of programmes in eight european countries and their contribution to the effective school improvement model , 2005 .