Note (15.02.2024): Last updated on 23.09.2021 (changelog). This page has been replaced by a current version and is available here as an archive for the AEL book version 1.0 until further notice.
… but this technical infrastructure only forms the framework. Only the (participatory) dialogues and the relationships between them are the glue [sic!], that holds everything together: the virtual and physical spaces.” (translated with DeeplPro)
Kerstin Mayrberger (2019, S. 44)1
The Agile Educational Leadership approach is developed here from the context of education and digitalisation or, more specifically, from the examination of the digital transformation of the (higher) education sector under the conditions of a culture of digitality. Even if it seems obvious to focus on the digital infrastructure or questions of mechanisation as well as the design of content in the form of digital educational offerings or online (self-)learning environments, because the educational sector is the focus here, this should not happen here. Put simply, although digital technologies and content are important prerequisites for digital transformation and the development of a culture of digitality in the education sector, they are not sufficient contextual conditions for agile educational leadership. Rather, agile educational leadership is about what can develop, form and be expressed in between or between all actors. It is about how the right framework can be designed and maintained on the basis of people and processes and how it can be supported by the many different people involved. And it is about this in-between that this chapter will focus on the diversity of people in the network of actors in the course of the digital transformation of the (higher) education sector.
Licence2
[Note: If the media file is not displayed correctly in your browser, all podcast chapters of the AEL book version 1.0 can also be listened to directly here.(german version)]
- Enabling relationships in between
- Participation in the field of education
- Diversity as a social mission
- Transformation of learning culture
Enabling relationships in between
By this in between, I mean the relationships and exchange with each other and among all actors. Communication and interaction have always been relevant for social interaction and remain so, particularly in the course of the digital transformation and especially under the conditions of a culture of digitality. Only open dialogues that promote participation and the relationships between the actors are the glue that holds everything together in today’s educational reality.
A few impressions from the current (higher) education context, which can certainly be found in a similar form in other contexts, should briefly illustrate the importance of relationships. Once again, the micro-level of interaction between teachers and students is used primarily as a frame of reference. Likewise, the discussion at the meso level of how degree programmes could be designed as blended programmes in line with the times or with the findings from the coronavirus pandemic could have been shown here, or examples of a digital transformation of administrative processes, which is currently taking place almost pragmatically, could have been shown, as is possible, for example, in the uncomplicated digital handling of examination-relevant processes. However, the topic of online teaching via video conferencing and learning platforms, including online examinations, is currently dominating the current and even public debate – and ultimately says a lot about relationships, trust and confidence at the micro level of teaching.
The important role of functioning relationships for successful online interaction can be seen, for example, in didactic and methodological discussions about the value of a trusting relationship, an open atmosphere for dialogue or trust in the framework that online teaching can offer. For example, under the keywords Energizer and WarmUp in teaching, there is an exchange among colleagues about the design of good initial phases in a synchronous, simultaneous online event in order to bring learners into (better) contact with each other and with the teacher. Another experience is that, in addition to the plenary view in the large group, learners strongly favour and also demand working in breakout rooms as part of online events via video conferencing systems, because here they can exchange ideas in small groups over a certain period of time according to their own rules and get to know each other and build relationships. They draw motivation and perseverance from this. The importance of this becomes clear in the discussion about the so-called black tiles, i.e. people are logged into a video conference for various reasons without a profile picture visible as a placeholder or camera image and they talk to each other on black tiles or when these are automatically hidden in a room without reference points or resonance. Lecture situations are also similar when lecture recordings or live lectures are mainly spoken into the camera – here, imagination alone helps to create a good computer-mediated atmosphere.
Technologies as a framework
What these examples are intended to illustrate at the micro level of interactions is that although the technology, e.g. for video conferencing, enables cooperation in terms of the technical framework, it is the people themselves who ensure that the whole thing functions in a trusting manner through their joint interaction within the technical environment with personal relationships. The importance of trust in online teaching in addition to technical control options is shown by discussions about concerns about secret recordings of online events without the consent of the people involved or the intensive debate about the implementation between online exams as confidential, written work (take-home exams) to controlled query exams or e‑exams with multiple video surveillance in private rooms (proctoring). Relationships here represent the glue between what is technically possible and what is not yet possible.
With their functions, technologies therefore only offer the technological framework that enables the actors to act with the functions provided. Basically, as technological actors in the interaction process, they have a powerful position in that they can enable, control and limit as well as prevent interactions. At the same time, they can only fully utilize this structural power if the individuals as actors are not willing or able to counter these structures with their own ideas and practices and make their preferred practices possible within the given framework. This can happen on the part of individuals such as teachers and learners, for example, by breaking down individual technological boundaries by using additional technologies to compensate for gaps or hurdles in order to enable the form of interaction, relationship and communication that is needed by the respective group for good, trusting cooperation. This kind of breaking down of technological frameworks can sometimes be expressed by combining video conferencing systems with messenger services as well as virtual whiteboards and social media networks in order to make the system viable or universal for oneself, the group of learners or an interest group.
If such forms of interaction can now take place in face-to-face situations and combined formats again in the foreseeable future, what will we have learnt and taken with us about the spectrum of relationship forms, relationship promotion and restrictions, but in this context about participation opportunities or power issues? And where will we continue to establish (perhaps even prioritise) digital formats and for what reasons? With regard to technology-supported, sustainable relationship work, what works well and sometimes even very well online or computer-mediated — and what works even better in face-to-face situations or combined programmes? The basis for shaping this appropriately is now in the hands of everyone involved by implementing changes in small steps instead of waiting for time to turn back soon.
Seamless
The current reality of learning and education, as we take it for granted in our everyday lives today, is constituted equally in virtual and physical spaces that are coupled, intertwined or blended. In the context of e‑learning and the digitalisation of teaching and learning, terms and terminology such as blended learning, hybrid learning or seamless learning have become established over the last few decades to describe these combined (learning) spaces across supposed boundaries. Seamless learning is interesting in two respects as a framework for education and learning in an area referred to here as in between, because it introduces both a technical and a learning culture perspective. Seamless is translated here as consistency. From a technical perspective, this means that the transitions between different technical applications such as learning platforms and apps or hardware should not be bumpy, but that they should be connected in such a way that seamless transitions are possible for users – so that application changes ideally do not influence or even disrupt the interaction processes. From a learning culture perspective, seamless learning can be defined even more broadly, namely as the continuity of physical and real learning spaces on the one hand and across different learning contexts, interpreted very broadly, even in the sense of lifelong learning. And this perspective could also be transferred beyond the area of teaching, which is often considered first, to other relevant areas in the (higher) education sector, such as the associated administration and management, support for research and teaching as well as the areas of research and transfer or so-called third mission in cooperation with social concerns. Seamless also stands for overcoming boundaries and thinking in silos and responsibilities, as this is needed across all areas in order to enable seamless continuity.
Shaping the framework
It is clear that technology alone will not be able to set the thread through the learning processes and, above all, maintain it over time. A wide variety of actors come into play here, from the technology and the organization to the teachers and learners. Media didactics, as the theory and practice of teaching and learning under the conditions of digitalization and, above all, a culture of digitality, offers a design-related framework for designing such frameworks or environments, especially when it also critically considers the interaction with the meso and macro levels in the field of education via the micro level.
Participatory media didactics provides suggestions on the extent to which relationships, communication and action can be shaped in such a framework of mutual trust and confidence and can contribute to a changed and contemporary learning culture by opening up spaces for participation and encouraging participation (Mayrberger, 20191 and for a bundled overview of the theory and practice of participatory media didactics3) – also to think further with regard to agile educational leadership.
Participation under the conditions of digitality is supported or limited by all kinds of relationships, especially personal ones. Accordingly, in addition to people, all other possible actors, including technology and the organisation, which open up or restrict the space for participation (Mayrberger, 2020)4 could be just as relevant — precisely as those who have the power to (co-)shape the framework.
Although the focus here is on people and their spaces for interaction and action, the question remains as to how important organisations are or can be for the ability of (individual) people to act in the course of Agile Educational Leadership. Is it enough to speak of participation here? Or, in view of the later comments on agility and leadership in the (higher) education sector, should it not be considered whether it makes more sense to go beyond participation?
Participation in the Field of Education
Participation is particularly valuable for joint process design and individual development in terms of potential learning and educational processes when it involves actual participation. In other words, the direction of development in interaction situations moves from the experience of greater heteronomy to the experience of greater self-determination. Actual participation means that the people involved are granted a right to participation, co-determination or self-determination, i.e. to actually take part in decision-making processes and to be able to exert a noticeable influence on the outcome or even to be responsible for the entire outcome. Everything else, according to the stage model of participation used as a basis here, are preliminary stages of actual participation or even forms of pseudo-participation, such as can be experienced in the context of information events with the opportunity to ask questions without direct influence on the further decision-making process (cf. in more detail Mayrberger, 20191 ) or the participation model of participatory media didactics5). You can probably think of a number of examples of this, not only in the field of education, between heteronomy and self-determination.
The ability to participate is also a goal of education if it also aims to promote the ability for self-determination combined with participation and solidarity, as formulated by Klafki. Participation in social, democratic processes can therefore always be read as a goal of personal development. Particularly in the course of current political orientations, which are once again moving more towards the fringes of the political spectrum, the educational mandate to represent the values and principles of a democratic basic order and the Basic Law is important to emphasize in the German education system. And from a didactic and pedagogical point of view, this includes, in the best case scenario, making these principles tangible and experienceable as early as possible in a subject-related or interdisciplinary way, which applies to the non-institutional education sector as well as to the institutional education context, such as higher education.
Participation here means that someone with more responsibility hands over part of this responsibility for decision-making processes to others with less responsibility in order to increase their share and also makes this transparent. The idea behind this is that those who are given responsibility are also in a position or are put in a position to share and manage this responsibility. Trusting relationships or relationships that can develop through shared experiences in working together, such as collaboration and cooperation, play a key role here – indeed, they are the glue for a functioning participatory space.
In the field of education, the most obvious example of relationships is to be seen at the micro level between teachers and students, but this can also be found in many forms in higher education at the meso and macro levels, whether between university management and faculty representatives or between department representatives and programme managers.
Participation and delegation
Regardless of which participation relationship is considered, it is strictly speaking always characterized by a powerful asymmetry as the starting point and thus by a person or organization that defines the framework for the extent to which decision-making power can and may be delegated. If no scope for participation is opened up at a structural or organizational level, actual participation is either impossible or very unlikely. Enabling actual experiences of participation is important across all age groups, with a particular focus on higher education, which many of tomorrow’s decision-makers go through. Participation experiences up to the highest form of self-determination are important in order to experience and learn how to deal with delegated responsibility — this also includes the experience of having made mistakes or having failed. What is important here for authentic experiences is that the delegation of responsibility is also carried out authentically and seriously. This requires trust and confidence that can be built up through shared experiences.
Apello’s Levels of Delegation and the associated methods of the Delegation Poker and Delegation Board6 provide an example of how the power to shape between actors can be mapped. They show and illustrate very well how important the differentiation, transparency and joint negotiation of areas of responsibility can be depending on certain contexts. The spectrum of external and self-determination is also implicitly clear here.
Beyound partizipation
What becomes clear in the models of participation and delegation is that here, too, it is primarily a person, i.e. a teacher or a superior, who decides or opens up the framework for negotiating participation and delegation levels. This is important preliminary work. But what if it went beyond the highest level of actual participation and full delegation again, because it fits in with the people and established processes? What if there was even full autonomy and the framework allowed for self-administration or self-organisation?
After all, what do I learn if I know that I can’t make any mistakes because someone else will make the final decision in the end? And what does someone learn if the decision-making framework is clear and the limits within which the decisions for themselves and perhaps also for their own group or team are their own responsibility are clear? Knowing full well that delegating responsibility is also associated with trust and confidence within the shared participation space, greater self-determination for individuals will probably also have a corresponding effect on their motivation.
This is because, as is already known from the self-determination theory of motivation (see Deci and Ryan)7, intrinsic motivation is potentially higher when people are strengthened in their self-determination by the framework and their opportunities for action. This is more likely to happen if three basic needs can be fulfilled, namely a sense of competence, social integration and experiences of autonomy.
If we now look at the question of participation, self-determination also emerges here as the highest level of participation. At the same time, education is also aimed at self-determination. And self-organisation is equated with autonomy in the participation model. Everything clearly signals that these high levels are not easy goals to achieve with everyone involved. One probably supports the other in the first place, i.e., for example, that every successful or unsuccessful experience of participation could potentially be accompanied by an educational process. And previous, actual experiences of participation could lead to better experiences of self-organisation.
In any case, this shows how important it is for the education sector to be given early and varied opportunities for participation and educational experiences; on the one hand, they are geared towards individuals, but on the other hand they also challenge individuals and require a lot from them, especially with regard to self-determination and the ability to organize themselves – something that not all actors have as a resource from the outset.
Diversity as a social mission
When we hear and talk about self-determination, the first impression is that it sounds rather positive and can be associated with people’s motivation and sense of achievement as well as a favourable framework for individual or joint development. At the same time, it is currently becoming clear that a high level of competences and resources will become more important for each person, especially with a view to their future ability to act under uncertain conditions, which will contribute individually and collectively and sensitize them to being able to solve problems in the best possible way. A person-orientated approach and the special characteristics of individuals in relation to self-determination and taking them into account when designing the framework for action will therefore become a comprehensive task for all actors involved.
With regard to particular personal characteristics in some contexts, including agile perspectives, it is sometimes said that people today should ideally have or develop a so-called T‑shape profile. This means a combination of a broad overview knowledge based on experience and the willingness to view contexts in context and to acquire competences in the sense of future skills or 21st century skills (short T‑shape), combined with in-depth expertise in a specific domain (long T‑shape). Although it is also important to keep a critical eye on the fact that company-related ideas of necessary skills for the future (working) world are sometimes more of a guiding principle here, it is also clear that, viewed critically and normatively, personal orientation today also means engaging with a need for diversity and, above all, dealing with diversity, and thus also consciously addressing social inequality and unequal conditions (see differentiating the term diversity)8.
A major challenge is therefore probably not so much to find a concrete answer to inequality in a person-centred approach in the (higher) education context, taking diversity dimensions into account. Rather, an enormous challenge also lies in reflecting on a critical, socially normative perspective geared towards participation and with a view to overcoming inequality and an exploitation-oriented, optimising perspective on the respective idea of diversity and to penetrate the breadth and depth of the goals of both perspectives for the next generation’s future ability to act and to create a comprehensive framework for action. This goes beyond simply promoting intercultural communication skills, for example, as part of future skills or diversity management.
Diversity as an opportunity
There is an opportunity in the diversity of all people involved today and it has become an obligatory task, especially (but not only) in the education sector, to consider and value inclusion and diversity as a matter of course and not to regard dealing with it as an additional task or additional work for which there is time when the supposedly actual work is done (see, for example, Wild und Esdar, 2014)9. Think, for example, of the creation of learning and educational materials that are usually only designed for conventional, supposedly general needs, instead of being oriented towards the broadest possible common access for many people in order to enable as much participation as possible (see, for example, the increasing relevance of universal design)10.
This possible diversity of personal profiles, which will continue to emerge in the course of open and participatory methods in the lifelong education process, may still be seen in some places, particularly in the education sector, as a challenge in dealing with heterogeneity rather than as an opportunity for diversity.
In this sense, self-centred approaches, such as the promotion and facilitation of self-determination, also help to promote such development processes through participatory experiences and the transfer of responsibility. But to what extent do these approaches at the competence level also harbour the goal of giving as many people as possible, and legally speaking all people equally, the opportunity to participate in such challenging interaction processes? To what extent can everyone be enabled to participate today? Strictly speaking, in view of the (german) legal framework and the goal of equal opportunities for all, this question should no longer arise today.
Access as a dutye
It has become a general duty to create access, minimise hurdles and enable openness to perosnal diversity (see, for example, the compilation of the formal framework with reference to the higher education sector by Stoltenhoff, 2021)11. Das gilt besonders für den Bildungsbereich, in dem die dortigen Akteur_innen die Chance und Aufgabe haben, frühzeitig Diversität als Wert zu kultivieren und für vielfältige diversitätssensible Erfahrungen zu sorgen. Eine Möglichkeit bietet hier vor allem die Mikroebene der gemeinsamen Interaktion beispielsweise in partizipativen Lernszenarien, bei denen die Verantwortung auf einzelne oder mehrere Lernende für ein gemeinsames Ergebnis übergeben wird und darauf vertraut wird, dass sich diese Lerngemeinschaften in ihrer Diversität für einen passenden Lösungsweg entscheiden werden. Ein solches gemeinsames Handeln ist gerade mit Blick auf Förderung von Selbstbestimmung für alle beteiligten Personen voraussetzungsreich, doch per se keine Hürde. So käme auf der Mikroebene der Lehre zur Minderung von Hürden beispielsweise didaktischen Rahmenbedingungen oder Unterstützungsangeboten zur Ermöglichung reibungsarmer Kooperations- und Kollaborationsprozesse eine förderliche Funktion im Prozess zu. Doch ist es nicht allein das didaktische Modell oder eine technische Umgebung, die die Beziehungsarbeit für andere übernimmt. Vielmehr wären es die Personen, die an ihren gemeinsamen Beziehungen diversitätssensibel arbeiten. Und dazu gehören die Lernenden miteinander wie auch beteiligte Lehrende, die in solchen Lernsettings im besten Falle auf ihre Coachingkompetenzen zurückgreifen können, um die Lerngruppe oder Einzelpersonen mit passenden Impulsen ihren eigenen, passenden Weg finden und gehen zu lassen – ganz im Sinne eines Leadership. Denn Diversität zeigt sich zumeist erst in den gemeinsamen Beziehungen und Praktiken. Sie kann die jeweilige Lehr- und Lernkultur im Bildungsbereich oder einem konkreten Lehr- und Lerngeschehen maßgeblich prägen, wenn jegliche Besonderheiten von Personen nicht als hinderlich, sondern als selbstverständlicher Teil des Ganzen betrachtet werden.
And so the question of whether a blanket personal orientation with a view to enabling participation and the experience of delegation accompanied by self-determination or even self-organisation is already fair and provides all personalities and individuals with equally suitable access can be provided with an initial answer: Participation and enabling self-organisation is only equitable if it is seen as a task to enable everyone in diversity-sensitive interaction environments to have equitable access and experience self-determination.
Transformation of Learning Culture
With a view to person-orientation and diversity, a very apt differentiation can be made at this point between the two perspectives of being and doing – as will be done later in the chapter on agility. Being is meant in the sense of mindset and principles that also carry forward the idea of learner-orientation and general person-orientation in a normative and education-oriented way, taking diversity into account and shaping the framework accordingly. Doing is meant more in the sense of practical implementation with the help of methods and design elements as well as the resulting practices in joint interaction. For the education sector, this perspective can be exemplified at the micro level both theoretically and empirically with references from learning psychology in the direction of a constructivist-oriented view of teaching and learning and corresponding (media) didactic design principles (see Mayrberger, 2019, chapter 6)1 as well as with a diversity-orientated teaching and learning culture (see also Wild and Esdar, 2014, chapter 3)12. This perspective represents a fundamental change in the traditional learning and teaching culture in higher education, because it stands for developing teaching formats as well as learning and examination processes, including the necessary administrative framework conditions, more clearly in the direction of promoting and enabling self-determination. Two examples with ideas for the future development of the higher education sector impressively demonstrate that changes of this kind in the higher education sector are not only to be found at the micro level, but also encompass the meso and macro levels in order to function. On the one hand, based on changing learning behaviour and needs with a clear reference to the meso and macro level, the AHEAD study presented a trend analysis with four exemplary scenarios including the well-known model on possible future study models in 203013. The possible future models show evolutionary and also revolutionary consequences for the design of the higher education sector under the conditions of digitalization. The realization of all variants in the coming years could contribute to the development of a specific culture of digitality and could orientate the higher education sector more strongly towards lifelong learning. The second example is of a conceptual nature and calls for a rethink of learning in the higher education sector towards a so-called New Learning in the course of digital transformation. To this end, twelve theses have been formulated in the “Hagen Manifesto on New Learning“14, which, based on a new learning culture, also consider the framework at the meso and macro levels and ultimately also postulate educational policy demands. In both examples, the argument is primarily based on the individuals or learners and their potential lifelong learning behaviour under the conditions of digitalization and digitality.
This is intended to illustrate by way of example that a stronger focus on the needs and diversity of individuals is relevant in at least two respects for the future ability to act, which should be the goal of contemporary education. Firstly, for the individuals themselves and their own education and development processes. Secondly, for the learner-oriented and diversity-sensitive design of the framework, including the organizational and structural conditions.
At the same time, this focus does not mean that the sole responsibility for a more open, participatory self-organization and self-determination-enabling teaching and learning culture under the conditions of digitality can now be delegated to the individuals alone and that change depends solely on them. However, people and processes are and remain the starting point for agile educational leadership in order to work together on the (higher) education system in the digital transformation and to help change the system through interaction and relationships. Although the focus here is therefore on individuals and the agile educational leadership they assume, the question remains as to how important the organization and technology are or should be as additional actors for the (individual) persons’ ability to act and scope for action in the course of agile educational leadership. Based on a person-centred approach, agile educational leadership focuses on agile values and principles, new forms and roles of leadership and, in particular, personal ambidexterity.
- Mayrberger, K. (2019). Partizipative Mediendidaktik. Gestaltung der (Hochschul-)Bildung unter den Bedingungen der Digitalisierung. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Licence: https://de.freepik.com/psd/mockup”>Mockup PSD by Vectorium — de.freepik.com; Book-Cover by Kerstin Mayrberger, Lizenz CC BY 4.0 [↩]
- https://partizipative-mediendidaktik.de/, accessed 29 March 2021 [↩]
- Mayrberger, K. (2020). Partizipative Mediendidaktik. Darstellung von Eckpunkten und Vertiefung des Partizipationsraums als konstituierendes Strukturelement. MedienPädagogik 17, 59 – 92. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/jb17/2020.04.26.X
[↩] - https://partizipative-mediendidaktik.de/ueber-partizipation-hinaus/, accessed 23.03.2021 [↩]
- https://management30.com/practice/delegation-poker, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbstbestimmungstheorie, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
- https://gender-glossar.de/d/item/48-diversity, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
- Wild, E. und Esdar, W. (2014). Eine heterogenitätsorientierte Lehr-/Lernkultur für eine Hochschule der Zukunft. Fachgutachten im Auftrag des Projekts nexus der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. accessed 29.03.2021, from https://www.hrk-nexus.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk-nexus/07-Downloads/07 – 02-Publikationen/Fachgutachten_Heterogenitaet.pdf [↩]
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Design, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
- Stoltenhoff, A‑K. (2021). Diversität, Geschlecht/Gender und Inklusion. Leitlinien, Gesetze und Perspektiven . Ein Padlet. Abgerufen am 29.03.2021, von https://padlet.com/MedienDiskurs/wd5yrphg6k5ympis [↩]
- Wild, E. und Wiebke, E. (2014). Eine heterogenitätsorientierte Lehr-/Lernkultur für eine Hochschule der Zukunft. Fachgutachten im Auftrag des Projekts nexus der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz. Abgerufen am 29.03.2021, von https://www.hrk-nexus.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk-nexus/07-Downloads/07 – 02-Publikationen/Fachgutachten_Heterogenitaet.pdf [↩]
- https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/de/news/ahead-studie-hochschullandschaft-2030, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
- https://newlearning.fernuni-hagen.de/das-hagener-manifest/, accessed 29.03.2021 [↩]
