Summary S 171 success of collaborative innovation practices themselves. They do not yet entrust this process entirely to teachers. Facilitators are school principals who are at a distance from collaborative innovation and mainly let the coach-teachers lead the process. They facilitate in terms of time for teachers to collaborate. How these leadership patterns are linked to distributed leadership was studied in Chapter 5. In Chapter 4 (sub-question 3), we investigated from a social network perspective how distributed leadership can be described and measured in teams working on collaborative innovation. A social network perspective focuses on studying interactions, such as leadership practices, between individuals. We therefore designed a social network questionnaire based on previous literature. The questionnaire sought to ascertain from whom advice was sought on working with leerKRACHT. Asking for advice is often used in the literature as a measure of distributed leadership. We conducted a pilot in a primary and secondary school and adapted some of the questionnaire items. The questionnaire was distributed to 14 teams. In total, we received responses from 130 (out of 148) teachers and 12 school principals. Firstly, based on previous research, we describe distributed leadership as a collective, dynamic, and relational process. To measure these three characteristics of distributed leadership, we conducted a social network analysis of the questionnaire data with three network measures. Each measure measured one of three characteristics: density, reciprocity, and centralization. Our results showed that these three measures together can ascertain degrees of distributed leadership. In addition, we found differences between school teams in terms of higher and lower degrees of distributed leadership. We found, too, that teachers are most often the central player in advice-seeking networks, followed by coach-teachers. In Chapter 5, we studied how these differences in degrees of distributed leadership link to school teams’ sociocultural context. In Chapter 5 (sub-question 4), we examined how differences in degrees of distributed leadership in teacher teams can be understood in relation to sociocultural contexts. We studied characteristics of the individual, the team, and the school context in 14 teacher teams. We used a mixed-methods design of a social network questionnaire about adviceseeking, perceived leaders, and friendship; a questionnaire on horizontal and vertical working relations; a questionnaire among external coaches about why schools work with leerKRACHT; interviews with school principals about leadership; and student scores. We found that teams with higher degrees of distributed leadership have Team player school principals, experience no threshold when it comes to asking advice of another, have an intrinsic motivation for collaborative innovation, and have conversations about improving education beyond the scope of their own classroom. We infer that a higher degree of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw