Vis sammendrag
Abstract: This evaluation report (Evaluation Report II), along with Evaluation Report I, is part of the project «Competence Package for the Introduction of the New Curriculum Framework (curriculum renewal)», hereafter referred to as the competence package, developed by Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences in collaboration with partners from several university and college environments, at the request of the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. The purpose of the digital competence package is to support teachers and school leaders in the introduction and application of the new curriculum framework in education, with the overarching goal of the work is that «Teachers and leaders interpret, understand, and use the curriculum framework in a way that is optimal for students' education». The purpose of Evaluation Report II is to gather knowledge from users (teachers and school leaders) which, in combination with other evaluations, research, and our experiences, will be used to provide input for the further development of the existing competence package, as well as contribute input for the development of future and similar web-based competence development initiatives. Furthermore, it is a subgoal to gain insight into the experiences of teachers and school leaders as they engage in development work supported by web resources with a school-based approach. There is currently limited research in this field, and we hope that this report can contribute to knowledge in the field. This evaluation report is based on both quantitative and qualitative data in the form of a survey and group interviews. The survey participants are primarily teachers, while participants in the interviews are teachers and leaders from three schools representing different levels of education (elementary, 1-10, and high school). Since the number of survey participants consists of only 43 individuals, and to provide the best possible advice and input, the authors of this report have chosen to go beyond what the data from the survey and focus group interviews can tell us. In our analysis of the data, we have supplemented it with relevant literature and research in the field, including the UiO's EVA2020 sub-report 4 (Karseth et al., 2022). We have also compared the data with data developed in Evaluation Report I and data from an ongoing survey with over 740 participants (teachers and school leaders) within the competence package. Another important aspect is that, in addition to relying on other data, literature, and research, we also draw on our own experiences. We have contributed as developers of the competence package, have followed it over time, and actively work in the field to support schools' development efforts. This influences our analyses, input, and advice. The evaluation shows that the competence package is perceived very positively as a pedagogical and didactic tool, which is supported by the ongoing survey within the competence package. At the same time, the competence package is experienced as very extensive and complex. For instance, one informant expressed that «you can get lost inside the competence package». Furthermore, the evaluation shows that it is difficult to adapt the competence package according to local needs. The competence package contains an intention that participating schools can adjust the work and choose resources that appear most important and useful in their context, but this evaluation shows that it is challenging to achieve. Here, we also see that the close connection between the various learning resources can be a hindrance in terms of choosing which resources to prioritize and work with, and adaptation primarily being about how to work with the various resources. The competence package includes extensive leadership support in the introduction and in each module. The evaluation shows that the leadership support has room for improvement, and input is provided for its further development. At the same time, it is important that such further development does not make the competence package even more extensive than it is today. Here, we also see that digital leadership support, no matter how good it may be, may not be sufficient for some. Therefore, we believe that other initiatives, such as physical or digital meetings for leaders working with competence packages, should be considered. The evaluation shows that different modules are emphasized differently, and work with the competence package decreases with each module. Module 5: Professional Learning Communities and the Way Forward is the last, concluding, and least emphasized module. According to various research in the field of education, professional learning communities are considered crucial for schools' development efforts (Elstad & Helstad, 2014; Irgens, 2007; Lødding et al., 2018). Based on this, we recommend, among other things, that professional learning communities are separated from the concluding module and included in the introduction module or as a standalone module. The evaluation shows that work with the competence package contributes to further development of knowledge and new knowledge related to the new curriculum framework and the topics addressed in the competence package. The evaluation also shows that the work contributes less to practice development, and the evaluation of practices appears weak. Developing practices is time-consuming, and we question whether the work with the competence package may have greater implications for practice in the long run. At the same time, we recommend making adjustments in this competence package that can contribute to a greater degree of practice development, where the evaluation of practices becomes a central part of it. The evaluation report concludes with short-term and long-term input for the further development of this competence package, and with input for the development of future and similar web-based competence development initiatives. We recommend that the input and advice are critically evaluated because the choices made can have a significant impact on the work. Choices and directions also present various challenges and dilemmas. For example, simplifying the competence package where the learning resources «stand on their own» to a greater extent could improve clarity and adaptation, but it could also contribute to fragmentation, where essential connections between resources and modules may risk being lost. In other words, the evaluation report shows that different approaches have both strengths and weaknesses.
