Lessons learnt from a large-scale curriculum reform : The strategies to enhance development work and reduce reform-related stress

Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Educational Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09363-1 1 3 Lessons learnt fromalarge‑scale curriculum reform: The strategies toenhance development work andreduce reform‑related stress LottaTikkanen1 · KirsiPyhältö1,2· JannePietarinen3· TiinaSoini4 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Sustainable school development is suggested to result in both meaningful learning and enhanced well-being for those involved in the reform work. The aim of the study was to gain a better understanding of the relations between the strategies utilised in school development work, school impact of the reform and burdening in the context of curriculum reform in Finland. Altogether 550 district-level stakeholders responsible for curriculum reform at the local level responded to the survey. Structural equation modelling (SEM)was utilised to explore the interrelations between the reform implementation strategy, collective proactive strategies of well-being, as well as reform-related stress and the perceived school impact of the reform. The results showed that the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy was related to the school impact of the reform and to the use of collective proactive strategies and reduced levels of stress. Collective proactive strategies also contributed to lower stress levels and enhanced school impact. The results indicate that the top-down– bottom-up implementation strategy provides an effective way to promote sustainable school reform in terms of enhancing the collective and cumulative learning and reducing burdening of those involved in the reform. Keywords Curriculum reform· Reform implementation strategy· Proactive strategies· School development· Work stress Introduction Sustainable school development results in both meaningful learning and the advancement of pupils and teachers’ well-being (Hargreaves and Fink 2006; Thoonen etal. 2012). Reforming the curriculum is suggested to be a tool that can enable such development (Ng 2009; Yuen etal. 2012). Yet, curriculum reforms do * Lotta Tikkanen [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article Journal of Educational Change 1 3 not automatically result in sustainable changes in the everyday practices of schools (Cuban 2013; Fullan and Miles 1992; Fullan 2007). In fact, school reforms are often shown to increase workload (e.g. Germeten 2011; Graczewski etal. 2007; Lainas 2010; Lasky 2005) and demand new competences (Valli and Buese 2007; Van Veen and Sleegers 2006), causing stress. This further increases teachers’ and other reform stakeholders’ risk for burnout (e.g. Yu etal. 2015), and reduces the chance of the reform taking root (Mendenhall etal. 2013). Reform strategy is shown to be one of the most central determinants of reform success (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Ramberg 2014). We presume that in addition to affecting reform success, the implementation strategy also significantly contributes to reform-related stress and the strategies used to manage it. However, research on the interrelation between school reform implementation strategies and the stress experienced by those responsible for it is surprisingly scarce. A few studies have focused primarily on teachers and principals involved in standard-based reforms characterised by high accountability (see Brown and Manktelow 2016; Lainas 2010; Lasky 2005; Valli and Buese 2007). Accordingly, little is known about how reform implementation strategies, in national non-standardised reforms, contribute to both meaningful learning and burdening for those carrying out the reform work. This study aims to help fill the gap in school reform literature by exploring the interrelations between the curriculum reform strategy and experienced burdening in the context of large-scale curriculum reform in Finland. More precisely, the interrelation between the reform strategy, proactive strategies of well-being, perceived impact of the curriculum reform and reformrelated stress among the educational practitioners responsible for managing the curriculum reform at the district level is explored. Curriculum reform inFinland The national core curriculum and local curriculums drawing on it are parts of the Finnish educational steering system. The core curriculum is reformed approximately every 10years. The Finnish educational system, including curriculum reforms, relies on flexible accountability structures and school and teacher autonomy emphasising trust in the schools (Aho etal. 2006; Sahlberg 2015). Stakeholders from all levels of the educational system are involved in the reform. At the national level, the Council of State provides the general goals for education and the frame for time allocations for various school subjects. Finnish National Agency for Education (former: The Finnish National Board of Education) is responsible for reforming the national core curriculum based on these documents. The national core curriculum includes the general objectives and core content of teaching, and describes the mission, values and structure of the overall education (Vitikka etal. 2012). The general values of basic education defined by the national core curriculum are human rights, equality, democracy, natural diversity, preserving environmental viability and endorsing multiculturalism (The Finnish National Board of Education 2014). The core curriculum provides a general framework for basic education, rather than of a set of strict, specific and sequenced topics that must be covered. Education providers, typically the municipalities, are responsible for constructing the local curriculums based on the 1 3 Journal of Educational Change national core curriculum. Municipalities and individual schools have the freedom to decide on the educational emphasis, teaching methods and learning material. They are also allowed to determine the way in which they organise the local curriculum reform work. Some municipalities have decided to construct their own curriculums, whereas others have opted to collaborate with each other. The local curriculum work is extensive, and involves a considerable number of educational practitioners such as school administrators, principals and teachers at the district level who comprise working groups responsible for reforming the curriculum. Theoretical framework Sustainable school development: Promoting learning andwell‑being School curriculum reforms aim at profound and long-lasting changes in schools and thus call for sustainable school development. Sustainable school development refers to context-sensitive development work, where the learning and well-being of those involved in the reform work are put on centre stage. In such school development, learning is considered both a means and the goal of the development work (see Hargreaves and Fink 2006; Thoonen etal. 2012). From this perspective, the school impact of the reform refers to the extent to which school reform helps teachers and principals to maintain the new pedagogical practices, find solutions to problems faced in everyday school life, and enhance their commitment to continuous school development (see Pietarinen etal. 2017; Sullanmaa etal. 2019). This also involves supporting rather than challenging the occupational well-being of those involved in the reform work (Soini etal. 2010; James and McCormick 2009). In order to have a profound impact on everyday life of schools, reform stakeholders’ collective learning, i.e. the translation of curriculum goals into adaptable and feasible pedagogical practices and the construction of new ways of thinking and acting (Brown and Palincsar 1989; Rauste-von Wright 2001; Resnick and Hall 1998; Stosich 2016), is crucial. This kind of meaningful, collective learning requires shared sense-making about the goals of the reform (Soini etal. 2018; Coburn 2005; Gawlik 2015; Weick etal. 2005). This entails constructing a collective understanding of the meaning of the reform, its significance, and its consequences for the school by interpreting the goals of the reform in the light of their previous knowledge, beliefs and practices (Soini etal. 2018; Coburn 2005; Evans 2007; Ketelaar etal. 2012; März and Kelchtermans 2013). Shared and coherent understanding of the reform among stakeholders at different levels of the education system is crucial for reform to take root (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Newmann etal. 2001). Reform stakeholders’ well-being plays a central role in the sustainable reform work, because it contributes to stakeholders’ ability to engage in active school development work (see Soini etal. 2010; Mendenhall etal. 2013). However, due to the new challenges faced, school reforms provide a potential source of stress, meaning negative, obstructive emotions such as anger, anxiety, tension, frustration and depression (Elo etal. 2003; Friedman 2000; Kyriacou 2001) among those involved in the reform implementation. The potential sources of reform-related stress include reshaped Journal of Educational Change 1 3 objectives of teaching, demands for new knowledge and competences (Chaplain 2001; Valli and Buese 2007), increased workload (Germeten 2011; Graczewski etal. 2007; Lainas 2010; Lasky 2005; Mendenhall etal. 2013; Saunders 2013; Van Veen etal. 2005; Yuen etal. 2012), and limited resources (Spillane etal. 2002; Van Veen etal. 2005). In addition, the reforms often raise worries about pupils’ learning and questions about professional competences and self-understanding (Ittner etal. 2019; Leithwood etal. 2002; März and Kelchtermans 2013; Saunders 2013; Schmidt and Datnow 2005; Spillane etal. 2002). These may turn learning into mere surviving and result in greater work stress, at least in the short term. Work stress is hazardous for occupational well-being and may also put the reform’s success at risk. Extensive, prolonged work stress may lead to burnout (Freudenberger 1974). Work stress and related negative emotions may also decrease commitment to the reform efforts and increase the likelihood of engaging in dysfunctional teaching practices (Soini etal. 2010; Lasky 2005; Mendenhall etal. 2013; Saunders 2013; Van Veen etal. 2005; Wilcox and Lawson 2018). Stress is also contagious within the professional community: a crossover effect from school principals’ job-induced tension to the teachers and vice versa has been reported (Westman and Etzion 1999). However, the ability of the teacher community to learn together and with students is shown to buffer stress (Pyhältö etal. 2015) and hence, it seems that thriving at work and enjoying it is also contagious. Therefore, both collective, cumulative learning within a school reform and ensuring the well-being of those responsible for it are central preconditions for sustainable reform (see James and McCormick 2009). Studies have shown that sustainable changes are difficult to achieve, because school reforms tend to have only modest effects on classroom practices, teacher and pupil learning, and increase the risk for work stress (Cuban 2013; McCormick etal. 2006). Learning and burdening are both influenced by the strategies utilised in school development. Sustainable school development strategies Sustainable school development strategies are used to refer to both the reform implementation strategies and the proactive strategies of well-being utilised in the reform work. Reform implementation strategy, meaning the ways in which the reform is planned and organised, are likely to influence not only learning opportunities but also to reform stakeholders’ well-being (see Pyhältö etal. 2015; Ramberg 2014). Accordingly, the strategies of well-being, referring to the means to buffer stressors induced by a school reform, are an integral part of sustainable school development aiming to simultaneously promote well-being and learning (see Pietarinen etal. 2013). The top‑down–bottom‑up implementation strategy Large-scale school reforms are highly complex processes, and their success is regulated by multiple factors at different levels of the education system, ranging from the national level to the classroom level (Tikkanen etal. 2017; Fullan 2007; Leithwood etal. 2002), These factors include, for instance: the clarity of the reform goals, the extent to which the reform is aligned with the factual learning environment, and 1 3 Journal of Educational Change reform stakeholders’ motivation and sense of ownership over the reform (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Pyhältö etal. 2012, 2015; Boone 2014; Ketelaar etal. 2012; Leithwood etal. 2002; Thoonen etal. 2012). The reform implementation strategy—including leadership and orchestration of reform work—plays an important role with respect to how these factors are realised, hence providing a central determinant of reform success (Fullan 2007; Petko etal. 2015). The division between top-down and bottom-up reform implementation strategies has often been made (Fullan 1994, 2007; Petko etal. 2015). Top-down strategies, such as centralised reforms planned and led by policymakers or administrators, have been shown to have certain benefits mainly concerning the alignment between administrative-level actions, resource allocation, and the timing and dissemination of the intended development work at the district level (see Pietarinen etal. 2017; Petko etal. 2015). However, top-down reforms tend to have a weak impact on the everyday life of schools because they often fail to enhance ownership over the reform and build aligned understanding of the reform across different levels of the educational system (Chow 2013; Ng 2009). The bottom-up strategy, in which schools become decision-makers rather than implementers of administrativelevel initiatives (Honig 2004), has been suggested to promote local actors’ motivation and ownership of the reform (see Boone 2014; López-Yáñez and SánchezMoreno 2013). However, the empirical evidence of the success of bottom-up strategies in large-scale reforms is not convincing (see Fullan 1994). Studies have, for instance, shown that reforms carried out merely with bottom-up approaches often fall short due to lack of administrative-level support and funding (Honig 2004; Petko etal. 2015). In addition, these reform efforts tend to fail to scale up and spread to other school communities (Kawai etal. 2014). Due to the benefits and shortcomings of both approaches, a balanced combination of these strategies has been suggested to be effective in bringing about sustainable change (Fullan 1994, 2007; Kawai etal. 2014). The top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy integrates the initiatives from the administrative level, such as determining general goals and offering support, school leadership and teachers’ active participation (Fullan 2016; Petko etal. 2015; Priestley etal. 2015; Ramberg 2014). Accordingly, the top-down–bottom-up reform implementation strategy calls for leadership for change management and the enhancement of knowledge sharing in curriculum reform—especially in local curriculum work widely involving educational practitioners and aiming to transform the national core curriculum into local curricula. Leadership for change management refers to leadership practices that emphasise extensive stakeholder participation among, e.g. teachers, principals, policy-makers, parents, pupils and various professionals throughout the change process (Guhn 2009; Jones etal. 2013). This kind of leadership has been shown to enhance the reform’s impact on the educational reality (Alkahtani 2017; Boone 2014; Guhn 2009; Hargreaves and Fink 2006; Jones etal. 2013; López-Yáñez and Sánchez-Moreno 2013; Toh 2016). Involving lots of stakeholders with different ideas of the intended change in the process (van den Akker 2003) as well as facilitating participation of those affected by the reforms requires leadership that promotes collective responsibility, mutual trust and inclusive membership as well as the creation of spaces in which Journal of Educational Change 1 3 to work together towards common goals (Adams 2013; Adams and Miskell 2016; Chow 2013; Horton and Martin 2013; Kondakci etal. 2017; Stoll etal. 2006). Such participatory leadership in change management creates opportunities for learning and reflective professional inquiry among the educational practitioners who ultimately implement the aims of the reform in the school (Leana 2011; López-Yáñez and Sánchez-Moreno 2013; Ramberg 2014; Thoonen etal. 2012). In other words, change management practices are likely to enhance knowledge sharing in school reforms. In school reform, knowledge sharing means the utilisation of different stakeholders’ competences, experiences and expertise, and extensive collaboration between the reform stakeholders (Pietarinen etal. 2017; James and McCormick 2009). Knowledge sharing has been shown to enhance curriculum coherence and fit between the reform objectives and school-level conditions (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Pyhältö etal. 2011a; Könings etal. 2007; Ng 2009; Yuen etal. 2012). Knowledge sharing can also help to build shared meanings about the reform, which can promote a sense of efficacy regarding the achievement of reform goals and a willingness to both change one’s own educational practices as well as support others in development work (López-Yáñez and Sánchez-Moreno 2013). There is evidence that active knowledge sharing helps teachers to construct more holistic perceptions of how the reform will affect not just their own teaching but the school as a whole, which in turn enhances the sense of ownership of the reform (Pyhältö etal. 2012, 2014; Breiting 2008; Ketelaar etal. 2012). In other words, knowledge sharing can be used as a tool to foster shared sense-making, and thus it may help to promote collective, cumulative learning in a curriculum reform. We propose that reform implementation strategy is a central determinant of both the school impact and the well-being created in the reform work. Empirical evidence on the kinds of curriculum reform strategies contributing to the collective and cumulative learning and well-being of those involved, is, however, scarce. We presume that in addition to benefitting the profound and long-lasting changes in school reforms, i.e. school impact, the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy buffers burdening among those involved in such reform in three ways. Firstly, knowledge sharing can foster learning in a professional community that enables the new challenges provided by the reform to be overcome, and thus buffers negative emotions and stress (Lasky 2005; Saunders 2013; Spillane etal. 2002; Troudi and Alwan 2010). Secondly, the implementation strategy, including leadership for change management, may encourage the individuals to divide the responsibilities evenly and thus prevent the burdening of some individuals. Thirdly, the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy, especially with knowledge sharing as a part of it, may help the individuals to learn to co-regulate their behaviours when facing stressful interactions (Pyhältö etal. 2015; James and McCormick 2009; Saunders 2013), i.e. utilise collective proactive strategies of well-being. Collective proactive strategies ofwell‑being The reform stakeholders can learn and utilise different strategies to manage stress caused by reform work (Aspinwall and Taylor 1997; Greenglass etal. 1999; Kyriacou 2001; Verešová and Malá 2012). Especially active, future oriented, social and problem-focused strategies are shown to be effective in reducing work stress 1 3 Journal of Educational Change (Austin etal. 2005; Grossi 1999; Kyriacou 2001; Montgomery and Rupp 2005). This includes the acquisition of new resources that help to buffer stressful events in advance, treating possible stressors as challenges rather than threats (Gan etal. 2007; Greenglass and Fiksenbaum 2009; Schwarzer and Taubert 2002; Verešová and Malá 2012) as well as building and drawing on the collective resources at hand, i.e., utilising collective proactive strategies. Collective proactive strategies of wellbeing are generic by nature, meaning that they are not directed to a specific stressor but can be utilised in different kinds of situations (Aspinwall and Taylor 1997). These strategies play an important role in school development work, because the stressors induced by the school reforms may be unpredictable. Collective proactive strategies of well-being entail professional communities’ trust in their abilities to buffer stressors by supporting each other and regulating the workload provided by a reform, i.e. co-regulative support and co-regulative competence and efficacy. Co-regulative support refers to professional communities’ ability to recognise and utilise social resources in order to regulate the workload, for instance, as perceived in large-scale school improvement efforts (see Pietarinen etal. 2013; Straud etal. 2015). It involves professional communities’ abilities to support each other in not only coping with immediate stressors but also buffering potential stressors in advance (Greenglass and Fiksenbaum 2009) as well as being prepared, staying organised, and actively seeking help and support from each other (Klassen and Durksen 2014; Kyriacou 2001; Poirel etal. 2012). Social support has been shown to contribute to proactive coping and efficacy beliefs at the individual level (Greenglass and Fiksenbaum 2009; Underwood 2000). Thus, it can be assumed that mutual support enhances reform stakeholders’ trust in their professional communities’ competence in proactively regulating the challenges of a reform, i.e. their proactive coregulative competence and efficacy. Co-regulative competence and efficacy refer to professional communities’ capabilities and sense of collective efficacy in regulating the workload together (see Greenglass etal. 1999; Woolfolk Hoy etal. 2006). They are characterised by professional communities’ trust in their abilities to overcome the challenges in their work. Such competences can, for instance, entail professional communities’ capabilities in planning, searching for new information, learning new skills, and reducing work tasks that they find burdensome (see Kyriacou 2001). In school development work, proactive co-regulative competence and efficacy may entail teacher communities’ trust in their skills to regulate the pace of work or set limits to work assignments. Collective proactive strategies may play a dual role in school development: they not only contribute to well-being but also influence the success of the reform. The proactive collective strategies, especially co-regulative support, have been shown to function as a significant buffer against stressors (Pietarinen etal. 2013; Van Droogenbroeck etal. 2014), while a lack of such support from colleagues and school management has been found to engender negative attitudes towards school improvement efforts (Van Veen etal. 2005). Experienced well-being is likely to affect reform stakeholders’ opportunities to engage in school development work resulting in a greater school impact. Given that professional communities’ capabilities to proactively regulate the workload and collective efficacy beliefs are both associated with reduced levels of stress and burnout (Pietarinen etal. 2013; Klassen 2010), it can also be assumed that professional working Journal of Educational Change 1 3 groups’ competences and efficacy in dealing with the challenges provided by reform work are related to reduced levels of reform-related stress. Proactive strategies, such as support within the professional community, are also shown to promote social learning and sustainable change (Saunders 2013; van Veelen etal. 2017). In addition, social support and possibilities to set limits to work assignments, can be seen as resources in school reforms, and as such they can promote motivation towards school development (see Bakker and Demerouti 2007) and thus contribute to school impact. Consequently, we presume that the use of collective proactive strategies within school development work may result in sustainable changes by bolstering the reform impact in terms of collective, cumulative learning, and reducing stress. Summary ofthetheoretical framework Sustainable school development refers to simultaneous enhancement of collective learning at all levels of educational system and enhancing well-being among those involved in the reform work. It can be presumed that the strategies utilised in school development, consisting of top-down–bottom-up reform implementation strategy and collective proactive strategies of well-being, are crucial in such school development. Previous studies imply, for instance, that top-down–bottom up implementation strategy, consisting of leadership for change management and knowledge sharing, can promote school impact of the reform in terms of profound, long-lasting changes (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Ramberg 2014). Moreover, knowledge sharing may further reduce burdening in curriculum reform by buffering reform-related stress and promoting the utilisation of collective proactive strategies, especially co-regulative support, within working groups responsible for constructing the local curricula (see e.g. Pyhältö etal. 2015; James and McCormick 2009; Saunders 2013; Troudi and Alwan 2010; Van Veelen etal. 2017). Co-regulative support is likely to enhance working groups’ trust in their ability to regulate the workload together, i.e. sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (see Greenglass and Fiksenbaum 2009; Underwood 2000). Collective proactive strategies utilised in school reforms may not only buffer burdening, but also enhance learning and motivation towards school development (see Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Saunders 2013; van Veelen etal. 2017), and hence contribute to the school impact of the curriculum reform. Experienced burdening, e.g. reform-related stress, in turn, is likely to negatively affect stakeholders’ opportunities to engage in active school development (see Soini etal. 2010; Mendenhall etal. 2013; Van Veen etal. 2005), resulting in a decreased school impact of the curriculum reform. Empirical evidence of the interrelations between the strategies, school impact of the reform and burdening at the grass roots level in a large-scale curriculum reform is, however, deficient. Aim ofthestudy The aim of the study was to contribute to school reform literature by developing a path model describing the interrelations between the components of the top-down–bottom-up reform implementation strategy crucial in local-level 1 3 Journal of Educational Change curriculum work—i.e. change management (CM) and knowledge sharing (KS)— and their relations to perceived school impact of the reform (SCI), use of collective proactive strategies of well-being (i.e., perceived co-regulative support (CRS) and sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE)) and reformrelated stress (STRESS) (see Fig.1). The following hypothesis were tested: H1 In the top-down-bottom-up curriculum reform strategy: change management (CM) contributes to knowledge sharing practices (KS) (Leana 2011; López-Yáñez and Sánchez-Moreno 2013; Ramberg 2014). H2 Knowledge sharing (KS) contributes to the perceived school impact of the reform (SCI) (Pietarinen etal. 2017; Pyhältö etal. 2015; Boone 2014; Horton and Martin 2013; Petko etal. 2015; Priestley etal. 2015; Ramberg 2014), co-regulative support (CRS), including professional communities’ abilities to support each other, and reform-related stress (STRESS) (Lasky 2005; Saunders 2013; Spillane etal. 2002). H3 Collective proactive strategies of well-being contribute to both school impact of the reform and experienced reform-related stress: Perceived co-regulative support (CRS) contributes to the perceived school impact of the reform (SCI), (see Klassen and Durksen 2014; Kyriacou 2001), reform-related stress (STRESS) (see Pietarinen etal. 2013; Van Droogenbroeck etal. 2014), and a sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE) (see Greenglass and Fiksenbaum 2009; Underwood 2000). Furthermore, a sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE), including stakeholders’ trust in their abilities to regulate workloads together, contributes to experiences of reform-related stress (STRESS) (Pietarinen etal. 2013; Klassen 2010). Fig. 1 Hypothesised model of the interrelations between the components of the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy (i.e. change management (CM) and knowledge sharing (KS)), collective proactive strategies of well-being (i.e. perceived co-regulative support (CRS) and sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE)), reform-related stress (STRESS) and the perceived school impact of the reform (SCI) Journal of Educational Change 1 3 to reform-related stress, as was expected based on previous studies (see Pietarinen etal. 2013; Van Droogenbroeck etal. 2014), but rather seemed to have an impact on experienced reform-related stress through the sense of co-regulative competence and efficacy (H3). More specifically, educational practitioners’ trust in their capabilities to limit the workload (i.e. co-regulative support) enhanced their sense of competence and efficacy in coping with challenges triggered by the reform work (i.e. co-regulative competence and efficacy) (see also Pietarinen etal. 2013; Klassen 2010), which further seemed to buffer the experiences of reform-related stress. In other words, utilising collective proactive strategies that strengthened the use of social resources in working groups promoted effective curriculum reform work at the district level and enhanced educational stakeholders’ capacity to deal with stressors. Given that the working groups were short-term and loosely-connected, and the members did not necessarily know each other beforehand, they had to have learnt these collective strategies during the curriculum reform work. This suggests that learning is also crucial with regard to well-being, because reform stakeholders can learn new strategies to buffer burdening in the context of school reform, even though the primary focus was on facilitating shared school improvement efforts. Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature on school reforms by showing that learning and well-being are intertwined in a complex way in the implementation of large-scale school reforms (see also Pyhältö etal.2015; Soini etal. 2010). The experienced burdening did not directly contribute to collective, cumulative learning in terms of the perceived school impact of the reform, as was expected (see Soini etal. 2010; Lasky 2005; Mendenhall etal. 2013; Saunders 2013; Van Veen etal. 2005) (H4), but rather the strategies utilised in school development seemed to play central roles in regulating the interaction between burdening and collective, cumulative learning. The function of the top-down–bottom-up reform implementation strategy, especially with knowledge sharing as a part of it, seemed to be twofold in the district level reform work: the results implied that the top-down–bottom-up reform implementation strategy contributes directly to the school impact in terms of maintaining the development work and reduces burdening directly and through the learning of collective proactive strategies. The collective proactive strategies of well-being also performed multiple functions in school reform as they seemed to facilitate learning and buffer reform-related stress. In the light of the results, the curriculum reform work seemed rather promising at the district level. Although further investigation is needed to draw conclusions concerning the anatomy of sustainable school development at the school level, the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy is likely to be functional at school level as well, because of its benefits concerning the school impact of the reform and well-being. Utilising the top-down–bottom-up implementation strategy at the school level may also buffer the occurrence of differences between the schools in school impact of the reform and burdening. Based on the results of the study the following implications for future school reforms can be provided: • As learning and well-being are intertwined in school development, the school leaders should take the simultaneous promotion of learning and well-being as a primary goal of a school reform. 1 3 Journal of Educational Change • It is beneficial to put efforts into developing functional leadership practices such as building a clear division of work and briefing the stakeholders frequently during the reform. • Knowledge sharing should be intentionally promoted by making sure that multiple stakeholders’ perspectives are taken into account and they have opportunities to contribute to reform work. Also, building a culture of trust and interaction is beneficial in terms of learning and well-being. • The opportunities for reform stakeholders to learn collective proactive strategies, such as supporting each other and regulating the workload and the pace of development work together, should be intentionally created in school reforms. Limitations Different types of fit indices can be used to evaluate the model fit (Bentler 2007; Miles and Shevlin 2007). In this study, several fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR) indicated that the model fit the data. However, according to the Chi square test, the model fit was not acceptable. This is likely to have resulted from a relatively large sample size (Iacobucci 2010; Miles and Shevlin 2007). The sample adequately represented different types of municipalities in Finland and the variations of carrying out the local curriculum processes at the district level, which implies that the results can be generalised nationally. However, due to the distinctive nature of Finnish educational system (see Sahlberg 2015), further studies are needed to confirm the findings across the different types of educational systems. More specifically, the scales have thus far not been validated in other school systems or large-scale curriculum reforms abroad. Further construct validation of the scales introduced in this study is therefore needed. As the working groups were formed for the curriculum reform, they were shortterm and loosely associated communities compared to, for instance, established teacher communities. The results should be interpreted in the light of this notion. This study was conducted with cross-sectional design, which means that conclusions about the casual relationships cannot be drawn. Future longitudinal studies are, therefore, of importance to explore causal relations between the variables. In addition, using single-item stress scale enables the conclusions to be drawn only concerning the level of reform-related stress. In future it may also be fruitful to explore different types of stress to gain more detailed insight into the development of burdening in school reforms. Acknowledgements Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Grant No. 6600567) and the Academy of Finland (Grant No. 295022). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Journal of Educational Change 1 3 Table 2 The scales and items of the Curriculum Reform Inventory used in this study (items translated from Finnish) Scale Item Measure Factor determinacy Change management (CM) CM01 Management has been a success .931 CM02 The dissemination of information has been sufficient CM03 A clear division of work has been performed Knowledge sharing (KS) KS01 I have been able to influence definitions and contents .957 KS02 My competence has been utilised broadly KS03 Decisions are based on joint negotiations KS04 The feedback received has influenced the content of the curriculum KS07 Even radical ideas are welcome, and they are discussed jointly KS08 Work on the reform has been carried out jointly, not as a process dictated from above KS09 The competence of various actors has been utilised in an optimal manner KS10 Construction of an interactive atmosphere has been successful KS12 Working together is assessed on a regular basis KS13 The perspectives of the various teacher groups have been taken into account in an equal manner Co-regulative support (CRS) CRS01 When we face exhausting situations in the development work, we ask each other for support .918 CRS02 We are ever better at identifying situations in which we have succeeded CRS03 We know how to support colleagues burdened by the development work Co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE) CRCE01 We know how to delimit the development work .917 CRCE02 We know when we should slow our pace CRCE03 People can learn to regulate their coping with development work CRCE04 We know how to regulate our pace of development in the busy day-to-day life Appendix1 See Table2. 1 3 Journal of Educational Change Table 2 (continued) Scale Item Measure Factor determinacy School impact of the reform (SCI) SCI01 Maintains active development work at schools .946 SCI04 Commits teachers to working on developing the school SCI05 Helps the school community identify the core tasks SCI06 Directs development work to resolve problems observed in the daily life of the school SCI07 Helps people develop solutions that work at the local level for organising teaching SCI10 Promotes the resolution of many problems related to basic education at the local level Reform-related stress (STRESS) Stress’ refers to a situation where a person feels tense, restless, nervous or anxious or has trouble sleeping as things constantly prey on their mind. Do you feel such stress related to the development work? Journal of Educational Change 1 3 Table 3 Measurement models and their fit indices Measurement model Fit indices The top-down-bottom-up reform implementation strategy (i.e. change management (CM), knowledge sharing (KS)), twofactor model χ2 (60, N = 545) = 192.57 p < .001 RMSEA = .064 (90% C.I. = .054–.074) CFI/TLI = .95/.94 SRMR = .039 The collective proactive strategies of well-being (i.e. co-regulative support (CRS), co-regulative competence and efficacy (CRCE)), two-factor model χ2 (13, N = 542) = 49.65 p < .001 RMSEA = .072 (90% C.I. = .052–.094) CFI/TLI = .96/.93; SRMR = .037 The school impact of the reform (SCI) χ2 (8, N = 547) = 14.14, p > .05 RMSEA = .037 (90% C.I. = .000–.069) CFI/TLI = .99/.99 SRMR = .019 Appendix2 See Table3. References Adams, C. M. (2013). Collective trust: A social indicator of instructional capacity. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 363–382. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09578 23131 13115 19. Adams, C. M., & Miskell, R. C. (2016). Teacher trust in district administration. A promising line of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 675–706. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00131 61X16 65220 2. Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington: The World Bank. Alkahtani, A. (2017). Curriculum change management and workload. Improving Schools, 20(3), 209– 221. https ://doi.org/10.1177/13654 80217 70678 9. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417–436. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.417. Austin, V., Shah, S., & Muncer, S. (2005). Teacher stress and coping strategies used to reduce stress. Occupational Therapy International, 12(2), 63–80. https ://doi.org/10.1002/oti.16. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–329. https ://doi.org/10.1108/02683 94071 07331 15. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Boone, S. (2014). Using organizational learning to increase operational and conceptual mental models within professional learning communities. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 5(3), 85–99. https ://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.21152 . Breiting, S. (2008). Mental ownership and participation for innovation in environmental education and education for sustainable development. In S. L. A. Reid, P. B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & A. P. V. Simovska (Eds.), Participation and learning (pp. 159–180). Amsterdam: Springer. 1 3 Journal of Educational Change Brown, Z., & Manktelow, K. (2016). Perspectives on the standards agenda: Exploring the agenda’s impact on primary teachers’ professional identities. Education, 44(1), 68. https ://doi.org/10.1080/03004 279.2015.10899 20. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with MPlus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Routledge Academic. Chaplain, R. P. (2001). Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance? Educational Management & Administration, 29(2), 197–215. https ://doi.org/10.1177/02632 11X01 02920 05. Chow, A. (2013). Managing educational change: A case of two leadership approaches. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(1), 34–54. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13603 124.2012.67265 4. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https ://doi.org/10.1177/08959 04805 27614 3. Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109–125. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09578 23131 13046 61. Elo, A., Leppänen, A., & Jahkola, A. (2003). Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29(6), 444–451. https ://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh .752. Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159–188. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00131 61X06 29457 5. Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159–165. https ://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb007 06.x. Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 595–606. https ://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(20000 5)56:5%3c595 :AID-JCLP2 %3e3.0.CO;2-Q. Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. J. Anson (Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education (pp. 7–23). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539–544. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 3-016-9289-1. Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752. Gan, Y., Yang, M., Zhou, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2007). The two-factor structure of future-oriented coping and its mediating role in student engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 851–863. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.009. Gawlik, M. A. (2015). Shared sense-making: How charter school leaders ascribe meaning to accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 393–415. https ://doi.org/10.1108/ JEA-08-2013-0092. Germeten, S. (2011). The new national curriculum in Norway: A change in the role of the principals? Australian Journal of Education, 55(1), 14–23. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00049 44111 05500 103. Graczewski, C., Ruffin, M., Shambaugh, L., & Therriault, S. B. (2007). Selecting and implementing whole school improvement models: A district and school administrator perspective. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(1), 75–90. https ://doi.org/10.1080/10824 66070 12472 83. Greenglass, E., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2009). Proactive coping, positive affect, and well-being: Testing for mediation using path analysis. European Psychologist, 14(1), 29–39. https ://doi. org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.29. Greenglass, E., Schwarzer, R., Jakubiec, D., Fiksenbaum, L., & Taubert, S. (1999). The proactive coping inventory (PCI): A multidimensional research instrument. http://esthe rg.info.yorku .ca/files /2014/09/pci.pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2017. Grossi, G. (1999). Coping and emotional distress in a sample of Swedish unemployed. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 157–165. https ://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00113 . Gu, Q., & Johansson, O. (2013). Sustaining school performance: school contexts matter. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 301–326. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13603 124.2012.73224 2. Journal of Educational Change 1 3 Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school reform programs. Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 337–363. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 3-008-9063-0. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Honig, M. I. (2004). Where’s the “up” in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy, 18(4), 527–561. https :// doi.org/10.1177/08959 04804 26664 0. Horton, J., & Martin, B. N. (2013). The role of the district administration within professional learning communities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(1), 55–70. https ://doi. org/10.1080/13603 124.2012.67136 6. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https ://doi. org/10.1080/10705 51990 95401 18. Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003. Ittner, D., Hagenauer, G., & Hascher, T. (2019). Swiss principals’ emotions, basic needs satisfaction and readiness for change during curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Change, 20, 165–192. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 3-019-09339 -1. James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973–982. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.023. Jones, P., Forlin, C., & Gillies, A. (2013). The contribution of facilitated leadership to systems development for greater inclusive practices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(1), 60–74. Kawai, R., Serriere, S., & Mitra, D. (2014). Contested spaces of a “failing” elementary school. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42(4), 486–515. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00933 104.2014.96687 6. Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273–282. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004. Klassen, R. M. (2010). Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 342–350. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00220 67090 33830 69. Klassen, R. M., & Durksen, T. L. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158–169. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. learn instr uc.2014.05.003. Kondakci, Y., Beycioglu, K., Sincar, M., & Ugurlu, C. T. (2017). Readiness of teachers for change in schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 176–197. https ://doi. org/10.1080/13603 124.2015.10233 61. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 985–997. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004. Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00131 91012 00336 28. Lainas, A. (2010). Local directors of school education in Greece: Their role and main sources of job stress. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(4), 454–471. https ://doi. org/10.1177/17411 43210 36814 5. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899–916. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003. Leana, C. R. (2011). The missing LINK in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9, 30–35. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Mascall, B. (2002). A framework for research on large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3(1), 7–33. https ://doi.org/10.1023/A:10165 27421 742. López-Yáñez, J., & Sánchez-Moreno, M. (2013). Levers for sustainable improvement of Spanish schools in challenging contexts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 203–232. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s1083 3-012-9198-x. März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.004. McCormick, J., Ayres, P. L., & Beechey, B. (2006). Teaching self-efficacy, stress and coping in a major curriculum reform: Applying theory to context. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 53–70. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09578 23061 06426 56. 1 3 Journal of Educational Change Mendenhall, A. N., Iachini, A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2013). Exploring stakeholder perceptions of facilitators and barriers to implementation of an expanded school improvement model. Children & Schools, 35(4), 225–234. https ://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdt01 1. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.022. Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 458–486. https ://doi. org/10.2307/41264 79. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables—User’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https ://doi.org/10.3102/01623 73702 30042 97. Ng, S. W. (2009). Why did principals and teachers respond differently to curriculum reform? Teacher Development, 13(3), 187–203. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13664 53090 33355 58. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Petko, D., Egger, N., Cantieni, A., & Wespi, B. (2015). Digital media adoption in schools: Bottomup, top-down, complementary or optional? Computers & Education, 84, 49–61. https ://doi. org/10.1016/j.compe du.2014.12.019. Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: A sociocontextual approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 62–72. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2013.05.003. Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., & Soini, T. (2017). Large-scale curriculum reform in Finland – exploring the interrelation between implementation strategy, the function of the reform, and curriculum coherence. The Curriculum Journal, 28(1), 22–40. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09585 176.2016.11792 05. Poirel, E., Lapointe, P., & Yvon, F. (2012). Coping with administrative constraints by Quebec school principals. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(4), 302–318. https ://doi. org/10.1177/08295 73512 46113 1. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., Philippou, S., & Robinson, S. (2015). The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 187–201). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Pietarinen, J. (2011a). A systemic perspective on school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 46–61. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09578 23111 11020 54. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011b). Teacher-working-environment fit as a framework for burnout experienced by Finnish teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1101–1110. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.006. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 95–116. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1083 3-011-9171-0. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014). Comprehensive school teachers’ professional agency in large-scale educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 303–325. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s1083 3-013-9215-8. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and learning - from adaptation to active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(7), 811–830. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13540 602.2014.99548 3. Ramberg, M. R. (2014). What makes reform work? School-based conditions as predictors of teachers’ changing practice after a national curriculum reform. International Education Studies, 7(6), 46–65. https ://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p 46. Rauste-von Wright, M. (2001). The function of curriculum and the concept of learning. In E. Kimonen (Ed.), Curriculum approaches. Readings and activities for educational studies (pp. 21–34). Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89–118. Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Saunders, R. (2013). The role of teacher emotions in change: Experiences, patterns and implications for professional development. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 303–333. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s1083 3-012-9195-0. Journal of Educational Change 1 3 Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949–965. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2005.06.006. Schwarzer, R. & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 19–35). New York: Oxford University Press. http://cites eerx.ist.psu.edu/viewd oc/downl oad?doi=1 0.1.1.533.5201&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Retrieved April 27, 2017. Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). Shared sense-making strategies in curriculum reform: District-level perspective. Improving Schools, 21(2), 111–126. https ://doi.org/10.1177/13654 80217 74429 0. Soini, T., Pyhältö, K., & Pietarinen, J. (2010). Pedagogical well-being: Reflecting learning and wellbeing in teachers’ work. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 735–751. https ://doi. org/10.1080/13540 602.2010.51769 0. Sondergeld, T. A., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Evaluating the impact of an urban comprehensive school reform: An illustration of the need for mixed methods. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(2), 94–107. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.stued uc.2011.08.001. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https ://doi. org/10.3102/00346 54307 20033 87. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ s1083 3-006-0001-8. Stosich, E. L. (2016). Joint inquiry: Teachers’ collective learning about the common core in highpoverty urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1698–1731. https ://doi. org/10.3102/00028 31216 67540 3. Straud, C., McNaughton-Cassill, M., & Fuhrman, R. (2015). The role of the five factor model of personality with proactive coping and preventative coping among college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 60–64. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.055. Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2019). Curriculum coherence as perceived by district-level stakeholders in large-scale national curriculum reform in Finland. The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 244–263. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09585 176.2019.16075 12. The Finnish National Board of Education. (2014). National core curriculum. http://www.oph.fi/downl oad/13984 8_pops_web.pdf. Retrieved January 31, 2017. Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 441–460. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09243 453.2012.67886 7. Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Pietarinen, J. (2017). Primary determinants of a large-scale curriculum reform – National board administrators’ perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), 702–716. https ://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2016-0119. Toh, Y. (2016). Leading sustainable pedagogical reform with technology for student-centred learning: A complexity perspective. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 145–169. https ://doi.org/10.1007/ s1083 3-016-9273-9. Troudi, S., & Alwan, F. (2010). Teachers’ feelings during curriculum change in the United Arab Emirates: Opening pandora’s box. Teacher Development, 14(1), 107–121. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13664 53100 36966 59. Underwood, P. W. (2000). Chapter14: Social support—The promise and the reality. In V. H. Rice (Ed.), Handbook of stress, coping and health: Implications for nursing research, theory and practice (pp. 355–380). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558. https ://doi.org/10.3102/00028 31207 30685 9. Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. J. H. van den Akker, W. A. J. M. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Van Droogenbroeck, F., Spruyt, B., & Vanroelen, C. (2014). Burnout among senior teachers: Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 99–109. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.005. 1 3 Journal of Educational Change Van Veelen, R., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Endedijk, M. D. (2017). Professional learning among school leaders in secondary education: The impact of personal and work context factors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 365–408. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00131 61X16 68912 6. Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85–111. https ://doi.org/10.1080/00220 27050 01093 04. Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., & van de Ven, P. (2005). One teacher’s identity, emotions, and commitment to change: A case study into the cognitive–affective processes of a secondary school teacher in the context of reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 917–934. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2005.06.004. Verešová, M., & Malá, D. (2012). Stress, proactive coping and self-efficacy of teachers. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 294–300. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr o.2012.09.506. Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L., & Hurmerinta, E. (2012). The Finnish national core curriculum: Structure and development. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education (pp. 83–96). Rotterdam: Sense. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https ://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (1999). The crossover of strain from school principals to teachers and vice versa. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(3), 269–278. https ://doi. org/10.1037/1076-8998.4.3.269. Wilcox, K. C., & Lawson, H. A. (2018). Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 181–204. https :// doi.org/10.1007/s1083 3-017-9313-0. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715–737). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yu, X., Wang, P., Zhai, X., Dai, H., & Yang, Q. (2015). The effect of work stress on job burnout among teachers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 701–708. https :// doi.org/10.1007/s1120 5-014-0716-5. Yuen, T. W. W., Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, P. M. (2012). A study of the impact of the first phase of the curriculum reform on student learning in Hong Kong. The International Journal of Educational Management, 26(7), 710–728. https ://doi.org/10.1108/09513 54121 12637 82. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Affiliations LottaTikkanen1 · KirsiPyhältö1,2· JannePietarinen3· TiinaSoini4 Kirsi Pyhältö [email protected] Janne Pietarinen [email protected] Tiina Soini tiina.soini-ik[email protected] 1 Faculty ofEducational Sciences, University ofHelsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 1B, P.O. Box9, 00014Helsinki, Finland 2 Faculty ofEducation, University ofOulu, Oulu, Finland 3 School ofApplied Educational Science andTeacher Education, University ofEastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 2, P.O. Box111, 80101Joensuu, Finland 4 Faculty ofEducation andCulture, Tampere University, Virta (Åkerlundinkatu 5), 33014Tampere, Finland