Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools

1 / 14
About This Presentation
Title:

Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools

Description:

Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools two Swedish Cases Conny Bj rkman and Anders Olofsson Content Readiness for capacity building ... –

Number of Views:102
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 15
Provided by: conbjo
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools


1
Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for
Capacity Building in Schools
  • two Swedish Cases
  • Conny Björkman and Anders Olofsson

2
Content
  • Readiness for capacity building in schools
  • Aims
  • Method
  • Case A and B
  • A language of description
  • Results and Conclusions

3
Readiness for capacity building in schools
  • Capacity building a collective, and context
    bound, process in a school to enhance improvement
  • Readiness for capacity building schools
    collective, structural, cultural, and leadership
    readiness needed, in a certain context, to
    enhance capacity building

4
Aim
  • To create a language for qualitative
    descriptions of principals and teachers views on
    collaboration forms and staff development, as a
    readiness for capacity building in schools, and
  • To explore the use of this language in case
    studies of two Swedish secondary schools

5
Data collection
  • Team of three researchers
  • General school observations
  • Individual interviews

6
The qualitative process of analysing
  • From empirical conceptions to theoretical
    concepts
  • What structure and how culture
  • Political, Principalship, Work team, Teacher

7
The two cases
  • Case A
  • 200 students (grades 7-9)
  • mono-ethnical, middle class, village
  • Social democratic
  • Successful due to student academic results
    in grade 9

8
The two cases
  • Case B
  • 470 students (grades 7-9)
  • multi-ethnical, middle class, big city
  • Social democratic
  • Successful due to student academic results
    in grade 9

9
A language of description (Case A)
  • Principalship and teachers views on staff
    development
  • Pr T(soc) T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)
    T(l)
  •  
  • Political
  •  
  • Principalship w
  •  
  • Work-teams
  •  
  • Teacher h wh wh wh wh
    wh

10
Conclusions
  • In school A the structure and culture of staff
    development is understood as an individual
    business for the teachers. The principal
    understands staff development as being based on
    her coaching of the individual teachers. These
    non-supporting views probably reduce the power of
    staff development, and therefore the existing
    views on staff development will have a weak
    contribution to the readiness for capacity
    building in school A.
  •  

11
A language of description (Case B)
  • Principalship and teachers views on staff
    development
  • Pr1Pr2T(soc)
    T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)T(l)
  •  
  • Political (wh)
  •  
  • Principal- w w
    w
  • ship
  •  
  • Work-teams h h wh wh wh
    wh h
  •  
  • Teacher

12
Conclusions
  • In school B both structure and culture of staff
    development is understood in a similar way, by
    principals and teachers. This probably means that
    staff development can be used as a powerful tool
    in school improvement, and therefore existing
    views on staff development can contribute to the
    readiness for capacity building in school B.

13
Final conclusions
  • These statements highlight structural and
    cultural conditions in schools. Conditions, which
    have to be treated as challenges by the
    principalship. Treated differently, due to staff,
    students, school context and local and national
    curricula.
  • This model could provide the researcher with new
    dimensions of success in terms of describing the
    readiness for capacity building in schools, but
    also provide schools with a useful tool for
    understanding its own status of readiness for
    capacity building.

14
Thank you so much for your attention. We
appreciate your critical support!
  • conny.bjorkman_at_miun.se
  • anders.olofsson_at_miun.se

This paper is part of the research project
"Structure, culture, leadershipprerequisites for
successful schools?" at the Centre for Principal
Development, Umeå university led by professor
Olof Johansson with co-directors associated
professor Jonas Höög, Umeå university, professor
Leif Lindberg, Växjö university and associated
professor Anders Olofsson, Mid Sweden university,
Campus Härnösand. The project is financed by the
Swedish Research Council.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com