Exploring educational ecosystems: insights from the implementation of SchoolWeavers tool in Catalonia
Open accessAbstract
Education has undergone significant changes, leading to more complex and collaborative approaches that recognize schools as ecosystems where diverse stakeholders interact. Consequently, new processes and tools are needed to promote leadership within these ecosystems. To guide school leadership teams, we developed and piloted the online tool ‘SchoolWeavers’, which fosters relationships and collaboration across the ecosystem to improve learning and well-being. This study examines the initial outcomes of using SchoolWeavers as a school leadership strategy in five schools in Catalonia, Spain, by surveying 1,615 members of the ecosystem, including teachers, leaders, staff, families, students, and community professionals. The aim is to investigate school ecosystem dynamics through the domains addressed by the tool, such as empathy, trust, shared purpose, innovation, collaboration, equity, and personalized learning, identifying opportunities for improvement and ways to foster stronger educational ecosystems. Leadership teams showed the highest scores and positive perceptions, while students rated the domains lower. Community professionals had low participation, indicating weaker collaboration with the community. Trust and equity received the highest scores, whereas innovation and personalized learning were less valued. This study highlights the need for tools to strengthen educational ecosystems and identifies areas for improvement, particularly in innovation and student agency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Transforming content knowledge into accessible formats for learners, using appropriate practical pedagogical content knowledge (pPCK), is challenging for these teachers.
“Transforming content knowledge into accessible formats for learners, using appropriate practical pedagogical content knowledge (pPCK), is challenging for these teachers [66,67].”
From Are Pre-Service Teachers Receiving Quality Mentoring in Rural Schools? A Synopsis from Research in South Africa (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions from a systematic literature review
Niedlich, S., Kallfaß, A., Pohle, S., & Bormann, I. (2021) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3239 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tsoka, M., Runhare, T., Machisi, E., & Magosha, T. A. (2026) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu5020037
“Transforming content knowledge into accessible formats for learners, using appropriate practical pedagogical content knowledge (pPCK), is challenging for these teachers [66,67].”
- Authors
- Civís Zaragoza, M., & Díaz-Gibson, J.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Ramon Llull
- Universitat Ramon Llull (ES)
- Venue
- International Journal of Leadership in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-10-22
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 1360-3124 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5092
- OpenAlex
- W4403651132
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 7.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Journal of Leadership in Education (publishedVersion)
- DAU - Digital Archive of URL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Ministry of Science, Education and Universities (PID2020-118208RB-I00)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Teacher Training
- Keywords
- educational ecosystem, school leadership, stakeholder collaboration, trust, equity, innovation, personalized learning, student agency, community participation, shared purpose, empathy, Catalonia
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review