We invite you into a participatory discussion and the project initiation of the UNESCO-NetEdu Learning and Digital Ecosystem Tool. Sign up now to October 27th 5- 6.30pm CET (RSVP here). We would like to engage with you on the novel approach being taken to co-design and co-prototype an online tool aimed to support government leaders and policymakers to weave country and local learning and digital Ecosystems.
Our hope is that, in time, this tool will support and enhance opportunities for lifelong learning and wellbeing at country and regional levels. The intention for the tool is to facilitate a process of cultivating and weaving trustful and innovative learning ecosystems, through strengthening the quantity and quality of meaningful interconnection between public, private and civil society stakeholders.
We are hoping to connect with potential partners that share our collective purpose and that would be interested in the further collaborative development of the UNESCO-NetEdu tool, as well as share their experiences and learnings within this space. At this point, the tool is in process of development. A prototype pilot is being designed for application in a country to be selected.
The Ecosystem tool will use social network analysis and Ecosystemic visualization features, allowing users to collect live data from social relationships, map community interconnections, analyze strengths and weaknesses and finally, translate insights into strategic action to strengthen the learning and digital ecosystem.
We are very looking forward to your participation.
Last Tuesday January 19th 2021 we celebrated our NetEdu Workshop on TRUST as a fundamental seed to be cultivated in learning ecosystems. It was lovely to see and listen to you all, and was amazing to share the learning space with more than 40 leaders and educators from the 5 continents that are really devoting their energy on making educational systems more human, relational and interwoven. The term ‘Learning Ecosystem‘ is gaining a powerful attention across the world -and this will increase in 2021- as a crucial approach to transform education and enhance learning opportunities for all, empower every student as a changemaker, weave caring and meaningful relationships within and across school boarders, enable school-community collaboration, grow individual and collective well-being and foster planet sustainability. But the huge expectations on the concept and named outcomes contrast with the low research based knoledge and understanding we have around how we can weave these human ecosystems and try to enhance all these relevant and ambicious challenges. And this is why the NetEdu Community and all these faces are so important!
Meditating and connecting to our collective purpose
However, there is already a big consensus around the idea of TRUST being the glue of learning ecosystems, but we strugle when we are willing to land in schools, districts and cities and start weaving meaningful relationships based on individual and collective TRUST. And this was the purpose of our session, to capture our collective experience and expertise to enlight the dialogue with practical wisdom. For this, we had the wonderful close testimony from three leadership teams from diverse countries that are using our tools to collect data around TRUST in their educational ecosystem levels and build TRUST as a crucial seed and sistemic outcome. Down here I will share some of the highlights of the session shared by members and facilitators, not as a conclusion but as a starting point to continue our glocal conversation and learning journey around how are we building trust in worldwide learning ecosystems.
One of the words that best captured the very rich and deep discussion that we had was «together«. Trust is built when we engage around shared hopes and dreams, and are able and willing to work together to achieve them. It can be expressed through words with a «com-«prefix, that indicate togetherness, such as «Com-passion» (shared struggle) and «Com-fort»(shared strength). Trust is also built when there is integration and «togetherness» individually across heart, mind and spirit, and organizationally and systemically across different systems levels and objectives, for instance education department, district, school leaders, educators, learners and community levels.
In this sense, being integrated within ourselves also allows for healthy mirroring to occur. It is now known that the phenomenon of mirroring is a neurological, biological and emotional occurence. We work well together when we are able to mirror back to each other what is happening in our system. Students thrive in environments where teachers and leaders are able to mirror to them what agency looks like. It is therefore so important for us to attend to these levels of teacher and leader wellbeing, so that these environments of healthy mirroring can occur – and not to focus solely on what is happening at the learner level. When leadership and educator levels are well, and are integrated across heart, mind and spirit, environments are created where not only learners, but everybody within that system can thrive.
Social Network analysis helps visualize emotional and intangible exchanges in the ecosystem
We also discussed how trust struggles to emerge because of the lack of “familiarity” with an organization, with someone or with her or his work: familiarity is connected to empathy and compassion, and may emerge from an authentic interest in the other person and from testing ways to connect with his or her work. This last point is particularly salient for trustful interactions in inter-organizational contexts, where people may have a preconception of how distinct their different organizations and actions are. In this sense, a “silo structure” and individualistic culture, where there is low transversality and low empathy, dramatically decreases trust across the whole organization.
Therefore, the ability to listen emphatically becomes a proxy for benevolence. To develop a trusting environment, we need first to insist on developing an authentic disposition towards students’ wellbeing. A caring teacher, for example listens empathically, knows how to express and make sure that the student felt that she/he is genuinely interested in her/his well-being. We also believe that teachers and staff should always be able to step back, emphatically, and distinguish what the student “is” from how she/he may behave or have learned. Institutionalized spaces and dispositions to express feelings and emotions are a key element. For this we need to work on rebuilding the relationship we all may have with mistakes, distinguishing the error from the person who commits it, and this happy-error culture needs to travel from classes to teachers labs. In this sense, trust in a school or community setting is a situation where the individual is empowered and not judged by his or her actions. The lack of judgment was also central in the discussion as a cross-sectional trust driver.
However, measuring trust in order to inform the conversation and enact was also a relevant piece in our conversation. Colleagues from Barcelona shared the metaphore placed by Kaplan in 1964. As we guess from the image below, an illuminated area is an area where it is possible, even simple, to find something and obtain quantitative data. The light provided by the research itself means that the data found can be presented as objective, even indisputable. The dark street is the rest of the space, and these are the areas where obtaining data would be complex, perhaps impossible in relation to the means available. Thus, collecting data on trust in practice can be sometimes imprecise but extremely meaningful and useful to strengthen the community and weave the ecosystem. And this was highlighted by leaders as a core value of the research-practice partnership lived and experienced with diverse tools co-developed in the NetEdu community.
Regarding school leader’s relationships with teachers and other staff, we shared that it is essential for school leaders to replicate these relational features in their interactions: coherence is fundamental to promote a caring and trusting environment. Also, for this latter kind of relationship, weneed to rethink the idea of control as a support on teachers’ activities, for example, shouldn’t be an external judgement but collaborative and adaptive support in order to foster trust: their formulation and implementation may be co-constructed and adaptable to ground dynamics. In this sense, we discussed the differences between the trust-terms Solidarity and Support. Solidarity is connected to community and a sense of belonging, and is an ongoing process, while support can be momentary as a feeling of “someone having your back”, as the school leader or the colleges.
Regarding the city level ecosystem, we came into the idea of the need of supporting the multiplicity and interconnection of diverse formal and informal networks that conform the whole ecosystem, identifying weaving opportunities and duplicities and favouring the flow of resources exchange. The strategies discussed to generate trust across levels were mainly based to create a relational climate in the network of diverse organizations and professionals based on horizontal and supportive relationships, considerng purpose and previous learnings of the participants, and facilitating universal learning conditions where everyone feels part of the whole and feels supported to participate. It was also relevant the intent of building new learning across all actors through spaces of metacognition, sensemaking and deep reflection; thus favoring the increase of professional capital among teachers and educators, and being faithful in each session to coherence and symmetry priciples: what we want to happen in our organizations and classrooms, we make it happen first with the global network. Thus, four systemic strategies were shared to be developed at this macro level of the ecosystem ecosystemic: leverage Systems thinking and networks to create a shared vision; focus on collective intelligence and co-ideation; personalize and contextualize; and co-design solutions to create the enabling conditions for change.
Finally, we were all invited to continue our deep conversation in our local contexts and organizations. A second invitation was to encourage all of you to consider whether your work on trust could be captured in a blog post and shared across our community and beyond (contact us if you have an idea for that;-). In our view it’s vital that all of us are encouraged to continue to experiment with the ideas around cultivating trust in learning ecosystems and specifically wrestle with applying and learning from them. We will end with special thanks to all the energizers of the session: Juan David and Diego Pinzon, school leaders from Montemorel School in Cundinamarca, Colombia; David Vannasdall, superintendent weaving the Arcadia Unified School District of 12 schools from California, United States; and Tatiana Soler, Victoria Ibañez and Imma Adell, co-leaders of the City School network Networks for Change weaving around 300 schools in Barcelona, Spain. And of course, special thanks to our beautiful trust builders and co-facilitators in the session, Alan Daly, Gitte Miller, Martin Scanlan and Juan David Pinzón.
In our collective journey of transitioning from standardized educational systems to human and caring learning ecosystems, we are happy to share with all of you the date and focus of the next NetEdu Workshop that will happen on January 19th 2021 from 5 pm to 7.15 pm CET time (by Zoom). This time the workshop discussion will be focusing on a hot area for the global project: How leaders cultivate the seeds of learning and caring ecosystems, and specifically we will focus on trust building as a key seed for ecosystemic growth. For this we will have three leaders as panelists that have used our NetEdu tools from diverse ecosystem levels from around the world:
– Juan David Pinzon, school leader and principal from Cundinamarca, Colombia –Montemorel School– – David Vannasdall, superintendent, district leader from California, United States -the Arcadia Unified School District– – Tatiana Soler, Victoria Ibañez and Imma Adell, School network leaders from Barcelona, Spain –Networks for Change-.
We will have a deep dive on trust drivers and consraints, its relevance, its measurement and its meaning, with crossed discussion from the leaders ground, we will also have breakout rooms, a fish bowl and of course, many surprises to come. As we usually do, building community will be a goal for us so you all can invite your close networks and aligned partners in your local or global contexts. We also share with you our latest blog post also focused on trust as a pillar of learning ecosystems: A question of trust: the case of the Arcadia Unified School District.
If you are interested in joinng the session please contact Jordi Díaz-Gibson (jorge@blanquerna.url.edu)
By Alan J. Daly, Katie Martin, Nicolette Van Halem, David Vannasdall, Devin Vodicka
Arcadia Unified School District Superintendent, David Vannasdall, was visiting classrooms and noticed that every student in a kindergarten classroom had produced the exact same piece of artwork. It struck him in that moment how the learning experiences in many cases were at odds with the aspirations that they shared as a community. They had gone through a multi-stage process to identify their core values which embodied a sense of creativity and innovation: Imagine, Inquire, Inspire and yet this example underscored the need to do more.
Arcadia Unified is widely recognized as one of the most successful K-12 systems as their students have 100% graduation and are successful by many metrics. Even so, their leaders also know that as the world continues to evolve the system and expectations in which education takes place must equally evolve and continue developing learners that thrive in an unpredictable world. During that walkthrough it became apparent how despite their vision, the systems set in place were anchored in standardization through existing practices and approaches. Moving forward would require more than a new vision.
This contrast between aspiration and reality plays itself out in classrooms, schools, and communities across the United States everyday. This is the story of how Arcadia Unified engaged in a research-practice partnership with Altitude Learning and the University of California San Diego as part of the NetEduProject as they sought to better understand and rigorously examine key levers for transformational change. The journey begins on a shift away from a “one size fits all” model of the industrial era to a learner-centered model that is grounded in values and purpose. This journey and partnership continues to evolve, deepen, and point to promising new ways of engagement. Even as we grow, the experiences from the early stages of the process in Arcadia have generated tremendous insights that are particularly relevant now as we are confronted with an unprecedented need to rapidly shift in response to COVID-19. The pandemic has further exposed the pressing need that our educational system must change if we are serious about equity and meeting the needs of each and every learner.
All come together with the idea that relationships and culture are key elements which must be attended to in creating transformational change. At the center of this idea is that the people in the learning ecosystem and particularly the leaders are core levers of change and therefore attending to the culture and climate in which they do their work is of primary importance. With this project we aim to develop a deeper understanding of successful change efforts towards learner-centered education in learning ecosysytems and the role of culture and climate all with a focus on equity.
What did we learn?
We gathered data around agency and culture in the Winter and Spring of 2019 and 2020 from 11 K-12 schools in the Arcadia Unified School District. Data came from a total of 42 school leaders, 371 teachers, 1622 students, 409 parents, and 174 classified staff reflecting close to a 70% response rate. Seven stakeholder groups were invited for the survey round, interviews with different stakeholder groups are ongoing, as well as observations and social network analysis.
Through the survey, we gathered a variety of climate variables from all stakeholders including: students, teachers, parents, classified staff, principals, and central office administrators. We worked with the district leaders to identify important ingredients of student’s school experiences within the district and defined the following culture variables accordingly:
Student perceptions of the culture and climate about the school
Student sense of belonging
Student perceptions of safety
Student trust in their educators (including teachers and principals)
Student voice and choice in their learning
Student perceptions of the relevance and contextualization of schoolwork
Student perceptions of interactions with their teachers
Student perceptions of interactions with their peers
Student perceptions of the usefulness of mobile devices for learning
The central question that we aimed to answer is: Out of all the areas we measured, what are the highest leverage points in realizing student-centered learning for the district? We applied a new set of approaches on this data to support district and site decision making on improvement efforts (see graph below). This new method produces a data-based ranking of the areas in terms of their positive effects on all other areas. Overall, it appears that students’ trust in their educators (principal and teacher trust) has the highest average association with all areas that together make up the student’s school experience.
Parallel to the findings in the student survey data, the results show that principal trust has the highest overall association with areas that together make up the teacher’s daily experiences in their work, including collaboration between teachers, communication with parents, instructional practices, and equity beliefs.
Increases in student’s perception of their trust with leaders are associated with an average increase of 15% in all eight other areas that make up a student’s school experience. In comparison, increases in safety as identified what leaders might think are most impactful are only associated with an average increase of 5% in all eight other areas. This makes the point that while leaders have good insights as to areas to focus on, the Better Together research-practice partnership resulted in an additional gain that would not have been realized without the partnership work. This research-practice partnership is successful because of the trust between partners and the fact the efforts are grounded in valid and reliable instruments and cutting-edge methods. The bottom line of the work is the importance of trust both within the partnership, but also across levels in the organization for realizing the district’s mission and core values.
Once trust was identified as a key element in transformational change, leadership renewed their focus on the importance of the quality of relationships and their core values and the results have been impressive. As is evident in the graph below, the levels of trust from 2019 to 2020 have grown in statistically significant ways. So how was all of this accomplished?
Four Key Areas of Transformation
As a result of the research-practice partnership, we identified 4 key elements of Learner-centered innovation with a focus on equity and they all revolve around a culture of trust that empowers individuals to collectively work to improve outcomes for all learners. To build on the shared vision and create more transparency and trust, we created a guiding coalition that included central office administrators, site based administrators, instructional coaches and teachers to 1) Leverage Systems Thinking and Networks 2) Focus on Collective Intelligence 3) Personalize and Contextualize and 4) Co-Design Solutions.
1) Leverage Systems Thinking and Networks to Create a Shared Vision
Too often when we create change it is done in silos and fails to represent diverse voices and perspectives that can create more meaningful and lasting change. Peter Senge points out that the only vision people ever commit to is their own. Without ongoing conversation about their vision and what it means in your content, it’s impossible to build a shared vision across a community. By including teams from the central office and each school and seeking input from families and the community, we were able to better understand the system and work together to create networks and catalyze the desired change.
2) Focus on Collective Intelligence
Nothing is more inspiring than working toward a common goal with people who share your passion and commitment. This collaboration among teachers from different schools and administrators created a contagious vibe that spurred creativity and innovation. We worked to define the desired goals, align learning experiences and enable conditions that we wanted to work towards. When schools and districts focus on compliance and mandates to implement programs and procedures, voice and choice are limited. On the other hand, like in Arcadia when you work to create an environment that honors the expertise of educators, you can empower those in schools who are working with students every day so that they can make informed decisions based on the needs of learners. We can change policies and implement new programs but if we don’t empower teachers and create school culture where people feel valued and free to take risks, we will miss out on our greatest opportunity to change how students learn.
3) Personalize and Contextualize
Based on the vision and the desired goals for learners, each school and educator was empowered to define specific areas of success and determine next steps that would move them forward. We spent a day as a team visiting each other’s classrooms and making our learning visible. This opportunity to learn and open up classrooms was built on the collective trust and allowed educators to see new and different practices. We supported teams to not just understand the vision but to take the ideas and practices we shared and explore what it looked like in different classrooms and contexts.
4) Co-Design Solutions to Create the Enabling Conditions for Change
The guiding coalition worked to make the vision and values explicit, found examples of what was possible throughout the district and beyond, and collaborated to identify barriers, challenges, and opportunities. Collectively this team was able to identify priorities that the district should focus on to further support the desired shifts in teaching and learning to continue to move toward the desired practices and meet the needs of each and every learner. This was possible because of the clear vision and a culture of trust to make choices based on the needs created a sense of agency and empowered educators to evolve their practices.
A New Way Forward
To transform ecosystems into ones in which students take an even more meaningful action in their learning, they need to trust their teachers. In parallel, teachers need to trust their administrators. This also flows in the opposite direction where administrators must extend trust to teachers who in turn must extend trust to the students. The key is deep, respectful high trust reciprocal relationships between all members of the educational community In short, when educators are trusted, empowered and supported to create more learner-centered experiences, they, in turn, can create the same environment of trust empowerment and support for their students.
Teachers create what they experience and it is our goal in the Better Togetherpartnership to model these practices and continue to research, learn and co-create the conditions for meaningful change and lasting impact. In partnership and through collaboration, we can make progress in the direction of our aspirations. For Arcadia, the shift is in the direction of more imagination, inquiry, and inspiration and unleashing the potential in the system. Our partnership has reinforced the notion that relationships are at the center of the change process. It begins and ends with trust and there is no question about that reality.
Weaving educational ecosystems in our districts and cities has become one of the greatest worldwide challenges for our systems to enhance learning and equity for the new era. The UNESCO (2020) publication “Education in a Post-COVID World: Nine Ideas for Public Action” indicates that those communities that have responded in an innovative, effective and resilient way to the crisis of COVID-19 are those who had shown greater collaboration between teachers, and between school and community actors. These ideas are also shown by other recent studies on school networks by Daly (2020) Azorín (2020) and Ion & Brown (2020). The reality of this pandemic has reminded us as a species that we are deeply connected to one another (Lancet 2020).
Learning ecosystems are social infrastructure formed by diverse actors that share a purpose, and engage in collaboration to co-design and co-implement innovative responses to existing social and educational challenges. Learning ecosystems provide a new understanding of education from an ecosystemic perspective of actors and their relationships; they challenge traditional organizational boundaries while providing place-based focus on local schools, neighborhoods, cities, or transnational networks; they are based on systemic and cross-sectorial collaboration; and pursue systemic impact (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2020). Thus, one of the most relevant questions in the global educational sphere is how learning ecosystems can be intentionally supported, cultivated and weaved, and how these place based ecosystems grow and evolve over time.
A natural way to approach and better understand learning ecosystems’ development and growth process is to dig into how biological ecosystems change and evolve. Science shows us that collaboration between organisms and species, not struggle for survival that allows ecosystems to evolve and species to truly flourish. As Darwin defended, if humans are the most advanced species it’s because we have the most advanced means of collaborating, and our communities care for the most vulnerable, the sick, the elderly and impoverished. Thus, collaboration is actually a natural and social driver for species survival and for thriving communities.
Ecosystems evolution is drawn byecological succession, understood as the process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time, where a network of different populations and organisms coexist and interact. The time scale for a biological ecosystem to evolve can be decades -for example, after a wildfire-, or even millions of years. The community begins with relatively few pioneering plants and animals and develops through increasing complexity until it becomes stable or self-perpetuating as a climax community. The engine of succession becomes the impact of established organisms upon their own environments. In other words, intraction among species and within the environment are the drivers of change in all ecosystems.
Colleagues in the NetEduProject have been studying networks, partnerships and ecosystems that enhance learning and equity in the last two decades (Daly, 2010; Riera and Civís, 2008; Díaz-Gibson, 2014; Díaz-Gibson et al, 2017 and 2020). Our learnings show that the development of learning ecosystems and their relational networks become a taugh and complex process that needs time and efforts to be properly cultivated, weaved, and consolidated. Personal relationships require time and intention to emerge and sustain, and their growth involves devoting intentional efforts. With this in mind, Mireia Civís and I have worked on a model to cultivate and weave learning ecosystems in three non linear steps, where we identified some patterns of evolution. Thus, to weave learning ecosystems we need to focus on different conditions depending on its level of maturity:
Biological and learning ecosystem’s evolution/ NetEduProject
The initial stage of the ecosystem’s growth is shown in the image as ‘Young network’. Following the idea of ecological succession, ecosystems change depends on the initial conditions found in the social network, and the type and number of actors, and the quantity and quality of relationships draw an initial starting point. At this stage, it is necessary to develop a structural design to cultivate the social foundations that will sustain the whole ecosystem: trust, empathy, recognition of others and collective purpose. It is the moment where members share goals and expectations, adjust rhythms and levels as new relationships are woven. This social capital will sustain the future development of the whole ecosystem of people and organizations, and will become the pillars that pave the way for a new collaborative culture. At this point, collective learning is a priority flow that needs to be planned, at the same time, will be part of the network’s own working culture. Ecosystems can take from one to three years to move into a second stage, and only the construction of solid intangible pillars will allow networks to change and evolve.
The second stage, named as ‘Mature network’, is more difficult to limit in time as its duration depends on several factors beyond the initial network conditions, such as investment, political support or system coherence. Here, we need to move towards the development and sustainability of social networks, and one of the aims is to consolidate the transition from individual to institutional commitment. It becomes a stage where we want to sustain a collaborative model of action and where we must continue to feed the social intangibles generated. At the same time, new strategies are being sought to assess and increase the impact of collective action. Once networks are weaved, they must come to live and make sense for themselves, they may not depend (or only depend) on external leadership. Also, at this point they must generate clear benefits for their participants according to the established objectives. The design and the structures need to be flexible and readjust to optimize resources to respond to needs and expectations of the people and organizations involved, also drawing clarity on paths for local based outcomes to emerge.
Finally, the third stage named as ‘Climax network’, is also imprecise in time for the same reasons. In this stage, the ecosystem creates intentional infrastructures for its sustainability beyond personal relationships, establishing institutional agreements, coordination documents, new opportunities for participation, among others. These strategies are aimed to facilitate interaction and self governed initiatives within the network. Here the ecosystem acquires an optimal level of maturity that is evidenced by consolidation of a new culture, where new rules and new ways of doing are practiced in professional and institutional levels. The network organization within the ecosystem in this stage tends to be characterized by a collaborative governance. People are empowered to open new cycles of revision and regeneration in order to create new meaning and new opportunities for individuals and for the collective.
We believe these three fluid and organic steps can inform the type of systemic support needed in the evolution of ecosystems to enhance social capital, learning and equity in our communities and cities across the globe. In the NetEduProject we are ‘hands on’ working on learning and sharing new leadership strategies that can move these social and participatory structures forward over time. As shared in the begining of this post, science has shown that collaboration is a natural driver for species survival. In this new era we are all embracing, humans and social systems really need to improve our collaborative competences to better take care of one another and create a thriving world for all.
Written by Jordi Díaz-Gibson and Alan Daly, NetEduProject
As we write this many of us across the world are sheltered in place, not being able to safely leave our homes. This pandemic has its roots in how connected we are as a planet. Ironically, we only seem to attend to our human connectivity when it comes to historically negative events such as a pandemic. However, what if we really focused on the fact that these connections also hold the potential for equally positive impacts for our world. Sadly, it seems we rarely activate these systems for this purpose.
In countries across the globe there are long standing educational inequities despite decades of attention, study, and work to alleviate systemic disparities. This statement is not to undermine the strides made, but as an educational community we still have a great distance to travel in becoming more equity minded and growing our educational systems in new and different directions. Perhaps one of contributing factors in not making greater progress on these issues is that many educational systems, and in fact individual educators, operate as independent units and as such may continue to create and replicate separate and unequal outcomes for students and communities. Typically, educational institutions and public agencies have not viewed themselves, either as organizations or individuals, as part of a larger interdependent and interconnected eco-system. This failure to recognize and embrace the idea that decisions, actions, and inactions are mutually influential and consequential has perhaps inhibited the collective ability to address pressing issues that have for far too long plagued educational organizations across the globe.
In recent days, there have been a number of proposals around the world that are being implemented on an experimental basis to reopen schools after the long breakouts responding to the complex challenge of education in times of pandemic. What surprises us about the proposals is that most of them focus on the school as a center of education and ignore the community as the natural eco-system for development and growth of students and families. Strictly focusing on the school-level at the expense of the community may inhibit our ability to expand educational spaces and flexible learning opportunities.
Schools are increasingly important parts of the social ecosystem, a part that cannot function alone or disconnected from the system to which it belongs. The significant educational challenges we face today are complex and intertwines with other public good issues such as promoting health, encouraging well-being, eradicating poverty, providing employment, creating work-life balance, and building strong intra and intergenerational relationships. We need to be aware that all parts of the system must work in concert and embrace the social and educational complexity that comes with that collective ecosystem participation. Thus, we need to connect disciplines to assess risks, map the educational assets of each territory, activate diverse people, organizations, institutions and services capable of contributing to a better understanding of our ecosystem.
Bronfenbrenner (1999) suggested that in order to understand schools and learning with high ‘ecological validity’, generating authentic knowledge that could be applied in real life and not just in ideal labs, we need to study the various subsystems that ecologically affect children and schools not as discreet individuals, but interconnected units. In this sense, the perspective of educational change and innovation in schools must evolve to take on a more systems focus as each school is located in the context of a neighborhood that, at the same time, is highly relevant as an informal education space.
Social network theory builds on the idea that social resources such as knowledge, information and expertise are exchanged through informal networks of relations between actors in a system. A fundamental element in this theory is concerned with the pattern of social ties that exist between actors in a social network that creates an overall social structure. In this sense, actors with more ties are more likely to quickly move resources across the network as they are well-connected to a large number of actors. In contrast, actors with fewer or no relational ties may have limited access to the mainstream information and may not be able to efficiently move information because their communication channels are less well-connected (Liou et al, 2019). Hence, as a growing body of research suggests, leaders need to have a clear map of the schools’ and community social networks to better understand how the resources flow in the wider ecosystem, and to promote broader opportunities to all the actors. This approach brings to life the idea of ecosystems and sets of interactions that hold promise for increasing the public good.
Although seeming like an obvious statement, that relationships matter, traction around this space for positive change has not taken hold as deeply in the education space. It may be that in the education space we are still very much focused on the “technical core” of the education process. In contrast to the technical core of schooling, progress through a relational perspective or the “social work” of improving outcomes requires a set of skills and capacities some leaders and educators may or may not possess. Interpersonal skills such as facilitating, questioning, active listening, and collaborating are often assumed to be among capacity of educators, but that assumption is potentially faulty and can derail efforts. Moreover, the ability to rebuild and repair damaged trust is a complex and nuanced endeavor that may require a new set of leadership capacities.
Thus, thinking about schools as social networks and considering the diverse actors that influence education and wellbeing in a community and their multiple interactions, allow us to understand schools as living and organic ecosystems. Clayton (2016) defines ecosystems in education as the intersection between a wide array of innovation actors such as teachers, school leaders, students, parents, technologists, civic entrepreneurs, designers, researchers, philanthropists and policy makers. Moreover, the coming together of these different groups may enable the disruption of existing practices, designing new learning models, and building new learning communities beyond the traditional notion of a school.
Godfrey and Brown (2019) defined a school ecosystem frame based on three key issues: 1) the need to connect all school change ultimately to its intended educational impact on youth, and by corollary to society; 2) to ensure that elements of the system -especially at the individual school level-are not viewed reductive or in isolation; and 3) to see system change as both interconnected and working in patterns of multidirectional cause and effect. Thus, the idea of a school understood as a learning ecosystem embraces a networked and systemic understanding of all school units; a collaborative action within and across the community to increase social capital and collective learning; and finally, the innovative and disruptive component as a central focus that promotes systemic impact across the whole ecosystem.
However, transforming schools into a learning ecosystem demands principals and educational leaders to be systems thinkers and focus on relationships between people and entities that can strengthen the school purpose, aligning shared objectives, promoting trust, connecting synergies, and facilitating a shared discussion and a collective construction of knowledge. The idea of network weaving is quickly emerging around the globe as a transdisciplinary leadership perspective that embraces a relational, distributed, networked and systemic approach. Weaving is defined as an approach to leadership that intends to transit from ego to eco, relying on curating circles, hosting conversations, building trusted relationships and shepherding people with highly diverse institutions, roles, backgrounds and perspectives into meaningful collaborations that have systemic impact (Luksha et al, 2020). Moreover, weaving entails the idea of securing the health and the potential of the wider ecosystem by cultivating relationships between people, and encouraging to lead organizations as living cells. Thus, weaving as an educational leadership approach completely aligns with the networked, collaborative, systemic and disruptive purposes of learning ecosystems.
Based on what we have shared in this essay, what if schools come back and challenge school boundaries and take advantage of the community as the natural environment for students and their communities. What if teachers welcome a small number of children and families at once, and children occupy diverse spaces in the community accompanied by diverse community professionals and other volunteers. What if schools in the same neighborhood, along with other educational and social agents, map spaces and actors involved in different fields such as museums, libraries, sports fields, parks, forests, beaches and mountains. What if leaders -as gardeners- seed a rich ecosystem and then start the tasks of growing and connecting these environments, care for social relationships, and look for common educational goals to co-create new opportunities and new proposals. What if policy makers empower the local level, and invest more resources in those neighborhoods and with those families who need more resources, more professionals and new infrastructure.
At a time when educational space and time are gaining in importance as vectors of educational quality, a look at the local and community educational ecosystem can help us ideate and design a proposal appropriate to the difficult challenge we face with the reopening of schools in the months ahead. Certainly, it will be necessary to evaluate risks, but at the same time to take them in order to devise, prototype and experiment with new schooling proposals.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Liou, Y., Bjorklund Jr., P., & Daly, A. (2019). Climate change in Common Core policy context: The shifting role of attitudes and beliefs. Educational Policy. doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843603
Clayton, R. (2016) Building Innovation Ecosystems in Education to Reinvent School. A study of innovation & system change in the USA. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
Godfrey, D., & C. Brown. (2019). An Ecosystem for Research-Engaged Schools: Reforming Education Through Research. Oxon: Routledge.
Luksha, P., Spencer-Keyse, J. & Cubista, J. (2020) Learning Ecosystems: An Emerging Praxis for Education. Global Education Futures and SKOLKOVO.
Teachers College Record, Date Published: July 20, 2020 https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 23374, Date Accessed: 8/19/2020 7:18:01 AM
University of California San Diego Professor of Education Alan Daly is one of the leaders of the NetEduProject. In this interview he answers questions relating to the role of the social networks and learning ecosystems in the world of education. He shares the importance of cultivating and weaving social relationships in schools and communities to build social networks and learning ecosystems. And of course, today we share a well known image in the NetEduProject: human towers in Catalonia, Spain, a gràfic example of what human relationships can build. At the same time, talking about human relationships in this context of global pandemic and social distance, really touches our heart. It can be missunderstood or contradictory, but in our times social relationships are more important and powerful than ever. Thus, focusing in human relationships and learning ecosystems enable us to embrace our own sense of humanity and humility, connecting in deep and meaningful ways that are going to make fundamental change not just in education but in our broader society.
Can you tell us what is a social network in education, and give us an example?
When people hear ‘social networks’ they imagine Facebook or Twitter or something like this and this is a kind of social network. But the kinds of social networks that we work in the NetEduProject with are primarily in schools and communities, with teachers, and really what I’m interested in understanding is their sets of relationships in between and amongst themselves. In education we have spent a lot of our time thinking about human capital. So human capital is our own experiences and our training and our knowledge and all that resides inside of ourselves. And we haven’t spent as much time thinking about social capital. Social capital is the knowledge that exists between two individuals, or the potential for that knowledge to exist between two individuals. So, I have some knowledge and experiences inside of myself and you have knowledge and experiences inside of yourself. If we can make a relationship together in some way, then we can exchange that knowledge. And that knowledge or those ideas or information, those all have real potential: They are capital, they have value to them. So the first thing we have to understand is that the reason that I’m interested in networks is that I’m interested in the value that comes from social relationships. And so, a network, if you can imagine in your mind’s eye is a set of these little dots. Each one of these dots typically represents a person, and then you can imagine lines between these dots, which represent the relationships. And those are the kinds of networks that we look at. And we can look at a variety of different ones and different types of relationships that people may have.
Why are social networks important in processes of educational reform and change efforts?
For a long time in education we have approached change as just a knowledge problem. Meaning, if only we could get people more knowledge, training and skills there would be this increase in change and performance. And I think that’s given us incremental improvements but not transformative improvements. And I think the reason behind that is that we have undervalued the interactions and the relationships that people have in systems. So if we think about change in the school or any kind of organisation, change happens between and among people. When you and I are together trying to make sense of something, we’re in effect changing, and my understanding of what’s happening is changing because of my interaction with you. So, in my work, I’m foregrounding the importance of the social interaction and backgrounding the knowledge piece, whereas in most educational change, they foreground the knowledge piece and background the relational piece. Now, I’m not saying that knowledge and information and training aren’t important, I work at a university so obviously I believe that they are, but I believe that we have probably undervalued the importance of our human connectedness and the quality of our relationships.
Why do we need to take an ecosystemic perspective in educational reforms to achieve success?
One of the things that we see in our work is that we have to think about taking a systems perspective, meaning that we can’t be thinking about the small, discrete parts of an organisation to really effect big transformative change. We’ve got to be thinking in terms of an ecosystem. And so if we’re only thinking about people that are in the formal leadership positions like principals or other community leaders, I think we miss a great deal of what’s happening in the system itself. So let me give you an example: Sometimes we can go into a school and we can look at these social interactions that we were talking about earlier and it turns out that there’s a teacher who a lot of people turn to for advice or knowledge or information, and in a way that person is a kind of a leader in the system although they don’t hold a formal leadership position in the same way a principal might hold. So with the NetEdu and the ScholWeavers tool for example, we trying to empower these kind of informal leaders among the school community. So if we only targeted the principals, those with the formal authority and leadership, we might very well miss out on really important leaders in the system. So in effect, what I’m trying to say is that leadership is more than just a title or a formal position; it has to do with the set of relationships we have between and amongst ourselves because those can be consequential.
When thinking about the leadership of learning ecosystems we like to highlight the importance of trust. And I think trust is a really important element in any kind of leadership role. So, the way that trust gets formed is that it’s an assessment of risk. I’m going to interact with you and I’m going to take a risk with you when I share something that you won’t make fun of me or you won’t laugh at me or you won’t think that I’m ridiculous. So I take a risk when I interact with you. And in turn you take a risk when you interact with me. And that exchange with one another, that helps build trust between us. And I think this idea about trust is a key element of transformative leadership. If we really want to move systems, it’s really about the quality of the relationships that we have between people. And transformative leaders have the ability to take those relationships and help move them to another level. I think the other part that goes along with transformative leadership is I think, it’s this idea about vulnerability. And, a leader’s ability to be vulnerable with somebody else, to open themselves up, to indicate that they’re not sure or they’re maybe not clear about the next step to take, I think can actually be a really freeing thing to those people that are following that leader. For far too long we’ve believed that the leader should have all of the answers. I’m sort of pushing on this idea that maybe this vulnerability is the new capacity for leaders of the 21st century.
What helps to promote trust in the system? Is it something that leaders can do?
I think certainly the leaders really have to take an important first step on that,. Because if they create the conditions for people to be able to interact and be vulnerable with one another, then they’re more likely to do so. If a leader creates the conditions that it’s not safe to take a risk, or to be vulnerable, or to seek one another for advice, then people are unlikely to do that. There’s been some really interesting work that’s been done by Bryk and colleagues in Chicago and we’ve done some work on trust too, and one of the big interesting findings that they find is that in those schools that have higher levels of trust between and among staff and between staff and students, those schools have higher academic productivity than schools in which there are lower levels of trust. So, this isn’t about some magical program that is in place in the school; it’s about the quality of the relationships. And leaders have an important role in setting the tenor and the conditions for those interactions to take place. But that’s not everything, right? You have to create the conditions for colleagues to share with one another.
Why are ever-popular technical plans and performance incentives not enough to transform education and society?
When we think about social or educational change, the sort of simple answers are these kind of technical fixes, right? If only we had more of this, if only teachers had more training, if only we had more money, then everything would be perfect. But we know that isn’t necessarily the case. So we can think about two kinds of leaders. We can think about technical leaders and they have the ability to sort of execute these technical plans and blueprints and we can think about adaptive leaders, those are the ones that are going to question the assumptions and try to embrace the context and try to think about the human relational capacity that’s going on within the system. And most often, we think about the technical things because they’re easy to measure and easy to take care of,. But in fact they don’t necessarily move us very far. So, let me give you an example. Here in Europe, which is wonderful, a lot of people drive stick-shift cars, manual cars right? In the US we’re far too lazy for this, so we just drive automatic cars, right? But let’s pretend I’m here and I don’t know how to drive a manual car very well and so eventually I burn out the clutch on this manual car. Now, I can bring it to a mechanic and the mechanic can replace the clutch and I can go and drive off, but a few months later I will be back again to have that car repaired. So that mechanic effectively has taken care of the technical problem, the broken car, but that person is not addressing the adaptive issue which is the driver inside the car. So unless we undertake the long-term deep work that is necessary for educational change to happen at the adaptive level, it’s unlikely we’ll move forward very far. And as long as our policies remain at this technical level, we will never be able to push to that next level.
What is an innovative and collaborative climate in schools and why do you think work should be done to promote it?
I think something that is happening in education worldwide is that we have become addicted to outside expertise. We have come to believe that the only way that change can happen is that some expert from the outside can help show us the light and lead us to the Promised Land. And sometimes that’s really important. We need external expertise and partners and folks to help move us forward. But I also wonder and believe that if we set up the learning ecosystems and the structures that are necessary for people to access learning and knowledge that already resides within their own system, amazing things could happen. You know, if you went into a school and you asked most teachers: “Who is the expert on language?” Or: “Who is the expert on maths?” or: “Who is the expert on science?” Or: “Mrs. Jones, a couple of doors down, what’s her expertise?” Some teachers may know, others might not know. We don’t often do an audit of the expertise within schools to celebrate the knowledge that resides within teachers and leaders within schools. We often, our first starting point, is to look outside. And what happens when we look outside is it decreases a person’s sense of efficacy. It’s a belief that somebody else outside of me has to tell me what to do and that erodes my efficacy. And a sense of efficacy is incredibly important. Bandura and other researchers have shown that my belief about my ability to reach and teach a child is as important or even more important than what that kid walks in the door with. And then we take that individual efficacy and we think about that across the school or across the system and we build the collective efficacy of systems to move forward.
Then we can start with this idea about innovation. What sometimes people get obsessed about is about innovation itself, like: What’s the thing we’re going to do? And that’s a really important thing to pay attention to. But it turns out that one person’s innovative idea is someone else’s everyday practice. So by labelling something or some approach as an innovation we might not be really looking at something that is innovative at all, it just could be somebody else’s regular practice. So what we’ve tried to do in our work is to move off innovation itself and to look at the climate and conditions that surround an organisation or a school or a district’s ability to create a climate that allows innovation to happen. So what do we know about climates in which innovation takes place? Well, number one, they’re about risk-taking, which means it’s got to be ok to fail. And most systems are not okay with people failing. But our argument has always been “Fail, fail fast and fail forward”. So that you can redesign, retool, reinvent and continue moving forward. But if systems don’t create the kinds of conditions so that people feel safe to do that, innovation won’t happen. The second thing, is that we’ve got to create an opportunity to create diversity of perspectives. So, oftentimes what happens, we surround ourselves with people who think like us in some way and that doesn’t allow us to have a diversity of perspective and opinion. And that’s what so wonderful about doing international work, is that it opens up your eyes and it opens up your perspectives and allows you to see the world from a new and different way. So first, we have to have risk-tolerant climates; second, we have to look at a variety of perspectives. And then thirdly, we have to be able to question the assumptions that underlie our work. We have to be willing to take a hard look at what we’re doing and ask ourselves the important question: Why are we doing this? Where is our work really rooted? What’s the why of what we’re doing? Because sometimes we forget that. And learning ecosystems that are innovative understand those three things in a deeper level.
How can policymakers help to create the conditions for educators to work together, share practices and develop their profession?
There are several things I can think of: Number one is we have to stop shaming and blaming educators. It’s this belief that if we have a big enough stick or we shame them enough, they will somehow improve. I think this is a pretty misguided way of thinking about things. So it turns out that if you do this, you’ll get incremental improvement but never to the next level of improvement. Let me give you an example: When systems or people feel under threat, what happens to your body is, you kind of close down, right? Your fingers and your hands get clammy, and you’re sort of: are you going to fight or are you going to run? And so, when systems feel like they’re under threat because they’re being shamed or they’re being humiliated or they’re being punished in some way, it turns out that they respond in very similar ways. They tend to circle the wagons. They tend to act in various stereotypic ways, they don’t innovate, they close off communication, decisions only get made by a few people. So, organisations in themselves often act just like people do when they’re under threat, which is what I think is happening here. So, when you’re under threat, what happens is that you feel like you have a big stick over your head and it turns out you don’t make your best decisions, your most creative decisions, your most innovative decisions when you have a big stick over your head. So, the idea is we have to remove fear, because it really undermines innovation, it undermines risk-taking, it undermines our ability to create meaningful and deep relationships and its’s going to be those meaningful and deep relationships that are authentic, that are genuine, that are imbued with trust. That’s what’s going to make the difference. Number two, focus on culture and climate within organisations. Actually make that something that we are intentionally thinking about, and measuring and trying to make progress towards. Because we know that the climate that exists and how people feel when they’re in a climate, that’s really important for their own productivity. You know within minutes, when you walk into a school as an educator, as a researcher or as a parent, the feeling tone of that school. You just sense this, right? Human beings sense this, we’re social creatures, we sense this. So how does one pay better and closer attention to the climate and the culture? And if that becomes something that we’re measuring, because what gets measured gets done, then that has people pay attention to these important, what we’ve often called soft skills around climate and culture and trust. And this is exactly what we do in the NetEduProject.
How useful is social network data or the data generated by the SchoolWeavers Tool? Can these data be used for educational change?
I think we live in a data-rich, information-poor climate right now. I think there’s tons of data around, we’re swimming in data, but we don’t know how to make meaning of it necessarily. So I can make very pretty charts, graphs but where does the meaning-making take place? How does one sense-make around data? So part of what we’ve been doing in our work is that we’re actually feeding data back into systems and then rather than telling them they should do X, Y and Z, we’re actually leading them through a process, so that they reach conclusions that are going to be useful to them. We’re creating the opportunity for people to sense-make around data. And to try to figure out what are they going to do on Thursday morning, it isn’t enough that we just hand people data, it’s the way that they’re going to interact with it. So how do we think about creating the conditions for people to interact around data in a way that it doesn’t feel threatening, in a way that they can make meaning? And how do we also provide them data that is actually useful, not just a bunch of numbers and statistics that we’re collecting, although that can also be useful. But also about the quality of what’s happening within systems. A lot of places have students a full year and then they give them the big test at the end of the year and somehow, next year they should improve based on the previous year’s results. Those sort of long-cycle assessments. I’m not so clear those always help to guide instruction as much as formative assessments. So, giving you feedback on a more regular basis that’s going to have to do with the work that you’re doing every day. So, I think formative assessments are much more useful for school and communities. Now, that kind of data might not be as useful for a policymaker. But the question is: How do we help policymakers see the complexity of the data? That the world isn’t just reduced to some small soundbite. That the work that we’re doing is actually quite complex, quite nuanced, and in order to make progress we have to sustain that work over time. So I’m not advocating for a certain kind of data or a certain kind of approach. What I’m advocating for is creating and opening up a space for dialogue to take place. And in that dialogue, amazing things can happen, as long as we don’t rush to decisions about something or misread what the data says.
Do you think that social networks and learning ecosystems can help to improve student achievement?
There has been some work that has been done in this space and we have done some work in this space also. I’ll give you an example. I taught sixth grade, and so this is for eleven- and twelve-year-old kids and I loved it. And I entered a grade level so I entered a collaborative group with other sixth grade teachers. And it turned out that the group of people that I was working with were amazing. They were thoughtful, they were passionate. They were great teachers. And I learned so much from them, I gained so much. And that enriched my experience as an educator but it also enriched the experience of my students. They benefited from the social network in which I resided. Now let me contrast that to a colleague that graduated in the same year as I did, was teaching in another sixth grade class just across town. The people in that group didn’t talk to each other, well, they didn’t even like each other, they would actively ignore one another. And so therefore, he didn’t have access to the other knowledge and ideas and information that I had access to, just for the mere random chance that I ended up in this school and he ended up in that school. And so therefore, his students also didn’t have access to the knowledge and understanding and perception and passion that his colleagues had. Like I did. And so to think that teacher social networks are not influential on students, to me, it confounds not only research but it confounds what we know intuitively about the ways in which people work and live.
Do you think that social networks are important for supporting students who are marginalised or living in poverty?
I think they’re incredibly important. I’m going to put a little caveat there for a second though. Because, when we think about a social network, meaning the connections between and among people, it can also be that bad stuff moves through social networks too. They’re not all shiny and puppies and rainbows, because sometimes bad ideas can move through networks, or beliefs about the potential of students can move through networks. So I’ve been in places before where people don’t believe that kids that come from poverty can actually achieve at the same level of their colleagues that are of higher socio-economic standards. That kind of belief or knowledge also moves through social networks. So the network in and of itself is not good or bad. What I’m arguing for, is building deep, high-quality relationships and then watching what is moving through those and also allowing pro-social interactions to take place that are going to help students. So I think this is a nuanced description. But in general, when we think about teachers having the ability to access one another, then I think this is a really important and powerful idea, because beliefs can also be shaped by our interaction. Especially if I have an emotional connection with somebody or I consider them a strong friend. I’ll give you an example. So, if I go to a training as an educator and the presenter is sharing this wonderful idea and he’s got great PowerPoints and he’s very passionate about what he wants to share and you and I are together in this meeting and we’re really close friends and we walk out together and I’m kind of excited about this idea, but I turn to you and I say: “Hey, what do you think about this idea?” and you say: “Hmm, I don’t think so.” I’m less likely to uptake that idea, because we have a strong connection. So in a way our relationship actually undermined my ability to go and try and do something new and something different. So I think my point here is that we have to be mindful about these networks and more importantly I think we have to visualise them. Our networks, we’re surrounded by these invisible sets of relationships that impact us in ways we’re not even aware. So how do we make them visible? And interesting work is suggesting that these networks influence how happy we are, even our weight. So these networks are consequential on our lives in ways that we can’t even imagine. So the question is: For schools, how do we help visualise these networks in ways that they can be used as a force of good? Particularly in communities that are impoverished or suffer from poverty? And I want to take this one level further, because I don’t think it’s just the networks within schools, I think we have to think much broader than that as a placed based learning ecosystem. I think it’s about the networks and connections out to communities, between community members. I think what we have to start doing is thinking about ourselves as network weavers; that we are connecting and linking together these networks in support of kids and families that are in poverty. Because at the end of the day, when we can lift children, and the families and communities that are in poverty, we all benefit. We all benefit. And so the question is: How do we do that in deep and meaningful ways that honours those communities? And I think that can be accomplished through supporting and nurturing our networks and learning ecosystems.
Entendemos que el liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos busca la consecución de los objetivos propuestos mediante la apertura y la conexión entre organización y entorno. Este liderazgo parte de la idea que la interconexión del ecosistema educativo del barrio o territorio supone un activo por sí solo y será una fuente de capital social y empoderamiento de los profesionales. El liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos se centra en la promoción de un cambio cultural en la comunidad profesional hacia a una cultura basada en la colaboración y la innovación, buscando interdependencias basadas en el win-win, además de un equilibrio entre estructura y acción, es decir, entre la construcción de un ecosistema educativo entre profesionales y/u organizaciones miembros, y una acción colaborativa e innovadora para conseguir resultados educativos y sociales significativos, contextualizados y sostenibles en la comunidad.
La literatura especializada describe el liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos como un liderazgo descentralizado y en red, dinamizador de procesos de toma de decisiones estable y representativo, generador de soluciones innovadoras y movilizador de recursos públicos y privados (Díaz-Gibson, et al 2010; Sorensen y Torfing, 2007), unas formas alejadas de las de un liderazgo tradicional basado en el mando y el control jerárquico (Kickert, Klijn y Koppenjan, 1997; Agranoff, 2003; Kooiman, 2003; Civís, Longás y Riera, 2008).
Así pues, las organizaciones educativas necesitan un liderazgo que tiene que ocupar una posición central en relación al ecosistema educativo, donde los líderes deben ser considerados actores legítimos a ojos de los miembros del mismo ecosistema, deben tener acceso a los recursos y, finalmente, deben tener capacidad de organización para gestionar un proyecto educativo que vaya más allá de la propia organización. Uno de los retos fundamentales para estos líderes es evitar un exceso, a la vez que una falta de dirección, es decir, evitar caer en modelos de control jerárquicos contrarios a una filosofía colaborativa, o bien evitar creer que estos procesos se autoregulan por sí solos y la innovación aparece de manera espontánea. Varios profesionales que trabajen conjuntamente no siempre establecerán una colaboración sostenida, y esta colaboración no siempre conducirá a la innovación. Así pues, solo cuando el proceso de colaboración es facilitado adecuadamente existen mayores garantías de que la innovación colaborativa tenga éxito.
El liderazgo en red está estrechamente relacionado con el design thinking —pensamiento en forma de diseño— o método de resolución de problemas, que utiliza herramientas del diseño para enfrentarse a retos sociales y educativos complejos mediante la implicación del usuario, el diálogo interdisciplinario, la colaboración y el intercambio de ideas y las pruebas piloto de investigación-acción con un feedback rápido (Bason, 2010). El design thinking promueve la colaboración y la cocreación; primero, para conseguir el “pensamiento divergente”, que utiliza el análisis lógico y los métodos creativos para generar nuevas ideas y propuestas, y segundo, para conseguir “el pensamiento convergente”, que sintetiza diferentes ideas en nuevas y mejores soluciones de trabajo. El design thinking es una herramienta para la mejora de la innovación colaborativa que los líderes educativos y sociales pueden utilizar para crear y sostener el liderazgo en red.
Concretamente, el liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos pretende construir una cultura colaborativa y un capital social entre los profesionales mediante estrategias relacionales y operacionales —basadas en la colaboración y orientadas a la innovación (Díaz-Gibson y Civís, 2014). Por una parte, las estrategias de colaboración buscan la construcción de flujos de comunicación e intercambio de recursos, vínculos cualitativos basados en la confianza y el compromiso, así como promover la iniciativa conjunta y la toma de decisiones colectiva. Por otra parte, las estrategias de innovación van dirigidas a alinear la acción con las necesidades de la comunidad, la creación de equipos interdisciplinarios y el diseño de estructuras para la mejora continua. A su vez, la combinación y el equilibrio entre las estrategias de colaboración y las de innovación es primordial para la efectividad del ecosistema en tanto que pretende potenciar las capacidades de la comunidad educativa de forma sostenible para responder de manera efectiva a las propias necesidades sociales y educativas.
En relación con el equilibrio necesario entre ambas grandes estrategias, hemos visto que la falta de liderazgo de la colaboración conduce a un menor impacto en la calidad de las conexiones entre actores de la comunidad, lo que afecta a aspectos cruciales como la confianza entre profesionales —y organizaciones— o el compromiso del conjunto de agentes, y por lo tanto, provoca una menor proximidad entre los profesionales, menor sostenibilidad de las interacciones y una acción fragmentada, poco representativa y menos efectiva. Por otra parte, la falta de un enfoque del liderazgo hacia la innovación tiene como principal efecto que las ideas y los proyectos surgidos de las interacciones no se traducen en acciones, hecho que reduce el compromiso de los profesionales en tanto que perciben que no hay efecto de la acción colectiva en su territorio, lo que amenaza la sostenibilidad y disminuye la efectividad de la acción (Díaz-Gibson y Civís, 2014).
Complementariamente a las estrategias de liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos presentadas, la literatura nos dice que las barreras a la colaboración y a la innovación en el conjunto del ecosistema —donde intervienen actores educativos y sociales diversos— pueden ser mitigadas y superadas por un liderazgo en red que asuma tres roles principales: ‘coordinador’, ‘facilitador’ y ‘catalizador’ (Straus, 2002; Crosby y Bryson, 2010; Morse, 2010; Ansell y Alison, 2012). 1) Coordinador: su rol es reunir a los actores pertinentes y estimular la interacción y el intercambio de información, opiniones e ideas. 2) Facilitador: su rol es conseguir que los actores colaboren mediante la gestión constructiva de sus diferencias y hacerlos participar activamente en los procesos de aprendizaje mutuo. 3) Catalizador: su rol es crear perturbaciones adecuadas para estimular a los actores a pensar de forma creativa u out of the box —fuera de la caja—, y desarrollar e implementar soluciones nuevas y audaces. Los diferentes roles pueden ser asumidos por una o varias personas del equipo de liderazgo, pero tienen que coexistir todos obligatoriamente para liderar ecosistemas educativos de éxito hacia la innovación colaborativa y la construcción de cambios educativos que sean significativos para los actores de un contexto específico.
En síntesis, las estrategias y los roles presentados nos ayudan a entender mejor las funciones y la orientación del liderazgo de ecosistemas educativos. Identificamos que este liderazgo se enfrenta al ambicioso reto de cambiar el estatus quo, donde tiene que conducir y acompañar una transición desde un escenario parcialmente aislado e inflexible a uno interconectado y colaborativo capaz de producir cambio e innovación continuos.
Entenem que el lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius busca l’assoliment dels objectius proposats mitjançant l’obertura i la connexió entre organització i entorn. Aquest lideratge parteix de la idea que la interconnexió de l’ecosistema educatiu del barri o territori suposa un actiu per ell mateix i serà una font de capital social i apoderament dels professionals. El lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius se centra en la promoció d’un canvi cultural en la comunitat professional vers una cultura de la innovació col·laborativa, que cerca interdependències basades en el win-win, a més d’un equilibri entre estructura i acció, és a dir, entre la construcció d’un ecosistema educatiu entre professionals i/o organitzacions membres, i una acció col·laborativa i innovadora per aconseguir resultats educatius i socials significatius, contextualitzats i sostenibles en la comunitat.
La literatura especialitzada descriu el lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius com un lideratge descentralitzat i en xarxa, dinamitzador de processos de presa de decisions estable i representatiu, generador de solucions innovadores i mobilitzador de recursos públics i privats (Díaz-Gibson et al, 2010; Sorensen i Torfing, 2007), unes formes allunyades de les d’un lideratge tradicional basat en el comandament i control jeràrquic (Kickert, Klijn i Koppenjan, 1997; Agranoff, 2003; Kooiman, 2003; Civís, Longás i Riera, 2008).
Així doncs, les organitzacions educatives necessiten un lideratge que ha d’ocupar una posició central en relació amb l’ecosistema educatiu, on els líders han de ser considerats actors legítims a ulls dels membres del mateix ecosistema, han de tenir accés als recursos, i finalment, han de tenir capacitat d’organització per gestionar un projecte educatiu que vagi més enllà dels límits de la pròpia organització. Un dels reptes fonamentals per a aquests líders és evitar un excés i alhora una manca de direcció, és a dir, evitar caure en models de control jeràrquics contraris a una filosofia col·laborativa, o bé evitar creure que aquests processos s’autoregulen per si sols i que la innovació col·laborativa apareix de forma espontània. Diversos professionals que treballin conjuntament no sempre establiran una col·laboració sostinguda, i aquesta col·laboració no sempre conduirà a la innovació. Així doncs, només quan el procés de col·laboració és facilitat adequadament es donen majors garanties perquè la innovació col·laborativa tingui èxit.
El lideratge en xarxa està estretament lligat amb el design thinking —pensament en forma de disseny— o mètode de resolució de problemes, que utilitza eines del disseny per fer front a reptes socials i educatius complexos mitjançant la implicació de l’usuari, el diàleg interdisciplinari, la col·laboració i l’intercanvi d’idees i les proves pilot d’investigació-acció amb un feedback ràpid (Bason, 2010). El design thinking promou la col·laboració i la cocreació; primer, per aconseguir el “pensament divergent”, que utilitza l’anàlisi lògica i mètodes creatius per generar noves idees i propostes, i segon, per aconseguir “el pensament convergent”, que sintetitza diferents idees en noves i millors solucions de treball. El design thinking és una eina per a la millora de la innovació col·laborativa que els líders educatius i socials poden fer servir per crear i sostenir el lideratge en xarxa.
Concretament, el lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius pretén construir una cultura col·laborativa i un capital social entre els professionals mitjançant estratègies relacionals i operacionals—basades en la col·laboració i orientades a la innovació (Díaz-Gibson i Civís, 2014). Per una banda, les estratègies de col·laboració cerquen la construcció de fluxos de comunicació i intercanvi de recursos, vincles qualitatius basats en la confiança i el compromís, així com promoure la iniciativa conjunta i la presa de decisions col·lectiva. Per altra banda, les estratègies d’innovació van dirigides a alinear l’acció amb les necessitats de la comunitat, la creació d’equips interdisciplinaris i el disseny d’estructures per a la millora continuada. Alhora, la combinació i l’equilibri entre les estratègies de col·laboració i les d’innovació esdevé cabdal per a l’efectivitat de l’ecosistema pel fet que pretenen potenciar les capacitats de la comunitat educativa de forma sostenible per respondre de manera efectiva a les pròpies necessitats socials i educatives.
En relació amb l’equilibri necessari entre ambdues grans estratègies, hem vist que la manca de lideratge de la col·laboració condueix a un menor impacte en la qualitat de les connexions entre actors de la comunitat, cosa que afecta aspectes crucials com la confiança entre professionals —i organitzacions— o el compromís del conjunt d’agents, i per tant, provoca una menor proximitat entre els professionals, menys sostenibilitat de les interaccions i una acció fragmentada, poc representativa i menys efectiva. D’altra banda, la manca d’un enfocament del lideratge vers la innovació té com a principal efecte que les idees i projectes sorgits de les interaccions no es tradueixin en accions, fet que redueix el compromís dels professionals en tant que perceben que no hi ha cap efecte de l’acció col·lectiva en el seu territori, cosa que amenaça la sostenibilitat i disminueix l’efectivitat de l’acció (Díaz-Gibson i Civís, 2014).
Complementàriament a les estratègies de lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius presentades, la literatura ens diu que les barreres a la col·laboració i a la innovació en el conjunt de l’ecosistema —on intervenen actors educatius i socials diversos— poden ser mitigades i superades per un lideratge que assumeixi tres rols principals: ‘coordinador’, ‘facilitador’ i ‘catalitzador’ (Straus, 2002; Crosby i Bryson, 2010; Morse, 2010; Ansell i Gash, 2012). 1) Coordinador: el seu rol és reunir els actors pertinents i estimular la interacció i l’intercanvi d’informació, opinions i idees. 2) Facilitador: el seu rol és aconseguir que els actors col·laborin mitjançant la gestió constructiva de les seves diferències i fer-los participar activament en els processos d’aprenentatge mutu. 3) Catalitzador: el seu rol és crear pertorbacions adequades per estimular els actors a pensar de forma creativa o out of the box —fora de la caixa—, i desenvolupar i implementar solucions noves i audaces. Els diferents rols poden ser assumits per una o diverses persones de l’equip de lideratge, però han de coexistir tots obligatòriament per liderar ecosistemes educatius d’èxit vers la innovació col·laborativa i la construcció de canvis educatius que siguin significatius pels actors d’un context específic.
En síntesi, les estratègies i els rols presentats ens ajuden a entendre millor les funcions i l’orientació del lideratge d’ecosistemes educatius. Identifiquem que aquest lideratge s’enfronta a l’ambiciós repte de canviar l’status quo, on ha de conduir i acompanyar una transició des d’un escenari parcialment aïllat i inflexible a un d’interconnectat i col·laboratiu capaç de produir canvi i innovació continus.
La innovación se ha convertido en un requerimiento esencial para cualquier organización en pleno siglo XXI, ya sea en el ámbito tecnológico, empresarial, económico, sanitario y social como en educación. Los cambios que se suceden en todos estos ámbitos y la velocidad a la que lo hacen requieren la capacidad de respuesta rápida, flexible y adaptativa que proporciona la innovación. A su vez, la innovación y el cambio representan variaciones y progresiones que impactan en las personas y en las organizaciones; a menudo, vienen acompañados de modificaciones conceptuales, procedimentales y culturales, un hecho que desafía nuestra zona de confort y provoca resistencias al cambio que se evidencian como un miedo natural a perder aquello estable, conocido y conservado (Carbonell, 2006; Sorensen y Torfing, 2010).
La innovación se entiende como un proceso dinámico mediante el cual se definen los retos y los problemas de actuación, se desarrollan ideas nuevas y creativas, y se seleccionan e implementan nuevas propuestas (Sorensen y Torfing, 2010). Cabe destacar que en la definición de los retos hay un componente reflexivo y de relación teoría-práctica que alimenta las bases de los nuevos planteamientos. A su vez, según Carbonell (2006), la innovación educativa comporta una serie de intervenciones, decisiones y procesos, con un cierto grado de intencionalidad y sistematización, que tratan de modificar actitudes, ideas, culturas, contenidos, modelos y prácticas pedagógicas y, a la vez persiguen introducir, en una línea renovadora, nuevos proyectos y programas, materiales curriculares, estrategias de enseñanza-aprendizaje, modelos didácticos y otra manera de organizar y gestionar el currículum, el centro y la dinámica del aula.
Por lo tanto, cuando hablamos de innovación nos estamos refiriendo esencialmente a procesos que, en última instancia, provocan cambios cualitativos en tanto que se rompe con las situaciones estables y convencionales. Estos procesos son orgánicos y complejos, presentan muchos altibajos a lo largo del camino y requieren tiempo y espacios de reflexión (Torfing y Díaz-Gibson, 2016). A la vez, la innovación, como el cambio final deseado, no se presenta siempre como una invención totalmente diferente a aquello existente —lo que sería una innovación disruptiva—, sino que también puede implicar la identificación, la traducción y el ajuste de nuevas ideas y soluciones de otros contextos, experiencias u organizaciones próximas —definida como innovación incremental (Ping Li, 2012). Por lo tanto, es el contexto en el que se implementa la innovación lo que determina si las propuestas finales son nuevas e innovadoras (Roberts y King, 1996).
Así, es en los procesos que nos conducen a nuevas propuestas donde se centra la innovación. Estos procesos de innovación requieren la activación de profesionales emprendedores que articulen los problemas, las oportunidades y las posibles soluciones, y que al mismo tiempo sean capaces de movilizar recursos materiales e inmateriales, explotando las posibles oportunidades. En las últimas décadas se ha producido un cambio de tendencia en cuanto a la aproximación sobre la innovación en el ámbito social. Se ha pasado de la promoción de una figura individual del ‘innovador o emprendedor’ a la promoción de los ‘ecosistemas de innovación’ en lo que denominamos coinnovación o innovación colaborativa (Eggers y Singh, 2009).
De este modo, si entendemos que mejorar la colaboración entre los profesionales de una organización o de una comunidad educativa puede promover la innovación educativa, se vuelve crucial conocer y explorar diferentes estrategias de colaboración. En NetEduProject, las estrategias de colaboración y de innovación son necesarias para mejorar el rendimiento de los ecosistemas educativos. Estos ecosistemas se construyen cuando las partes interesadas comparten sus conocimientos, información, experiencias, ideas y recursos para generar resultados innovadores que sean relevantes para ellos mismos (Sorensen y Torfing, 2011). A su vez, estos autores también subrayan que los procesos colaborativos e interdisciplinarios implican una gestión y un liderazgo constructivo desde la diversidad.
En conclusión, la aportación clave de la innovación colaborativa en el sector educativo es que la colaboración de múltiples actores de la comunidad pone en juego a todos los activos de innovación relevantes en términos de conocimiento, creatividad, iniciativa, recursos, capacidades transformadoras y autoridad política. Así pues, el liderazgo educativo ha de trabajar para el desarrollo de ecosistemas innovadores, potenciando la colaboración dentro de una organización y a través de la comunidad.
