Networks For Learning: Effective Collaboration for Teacher, School and System Improvement 9781315276649, 9781138244757, 9781138244764

Citation preview

NETWORKS FOR LEARNING

Educational researchers, policy-makers and practitioners are increasingly focusing their attention on Professional Learning Networks in order to facilitate teacher development and encourage school and school system improvement. However, despite the understanding that PLNs can contribute significantly to improving teaching practice and student achievement, there are key challenges regarding their use. These challenges include: ·· ·· ·· ··

ensuring PLNs can provide opportunities for generating and sharing knowledge within schools enabling teachers and professionals to direct their own development helping individuals change their practices through inquiry-led approaches facilitating partnerships which work across a variety of stakeholders

In this new edited volume, Brown and Poortman evaluate these challenges from both a theoretical and practical approach. A multitude of perspectives from a team of international contributors covers: ·· ·· ·· ·· ··

the importance of Professional Learning Networks the use of evidence within PLNs the impact of inter-school networks international cases of networks and communities the promotion and sustainability of PLNs

Also featuring case studies and exemplars to contextualise sustainable learning networks, Networks for Learning is an accessible and thoroughly researched book, which will be essential reading and a valuable resource for researchers, teachers and school leaders who are interested in developing Professional Learning Networks.

Chris Brown is Professor of Education at the School of Education and Childhood Studies, University of Portsmouth (UK). Chris has extensive experience of leading a range of funded projects, many of which seek to help practitioners use networks to identify and scale up best practice, and was recently awarded a significant grant by the Education Endowment Foundation to work with 100+ primary schools in England to increase their use of research. Cindy L. Poortman is Assistant Professor in the professional development of teachers in teams at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. She is also Project Leader of the Dutch national project ‘Pilots for the Development of Professional Learning Communities’, and Founder and Co-Project Leader of the Datateam Projects, the Netherlands.

NETWORKS FOR LEARNING Effective Collaboration for Teacher, School and System Improvement

Edited by Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Brown, Chris, 1975- editor. | Poortman, Cindy L., editor. Title: Networks for learning: effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement / edited by Chris Brown & Cindy L. Poortman. Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017034753 (print) | LCCN 2017053077 (ebook) | ISBN 9781315276649 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138244757 (hbk) | ISBN 9781138244764 (pbk) | ISBN 9781315276649 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Professional learning communities. | School improvement programs. Classification: LCC LB1731 (ebook) | LCC LB1731 .N367 2018 (print) | DDC 371.2/07–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017034753 ISBN: 978-1-138-24475-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-24476-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-27664-9 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

In memory of Sam Stringfield. Thank you for supporting us in establishing the ICSEI network on Professional Learning Networks and for encouraging us to pursue this book.

CONTENTS

List of figures ix List of tables xi List of contributors xii Acknowledgementsxx Forewordxxi Andy Hargreaves Introduction1 Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman 1 The importance of Professional Learning Networks Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

10

2 Balancing top-down and shared leadership: A case study of a Teacher Design Team in transition to a new approach Floor Binkhorst

20

3 Research Learning Networks: A case study in using networks to increase knowledge mobilization at scale Chris Brown

38

4 Developing Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry in British Columbia Leyton Schnellert, Paige Fisher and Kathy Sanford

56

viii  Contents

5 From data to learning: A data team Professional Learning Network 75 Kim Schildkamp, Jaana Nehez and Ulf Blossing 6 Austria’s Lerndesigner Network: The dynamics of Virtual Professional Learning in interschool networks Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

92

7 A Professional Learning Network for the entire local education system: Educational landscapes in Germany Pierre Tulowitzki, Anika Duveneck and Michael Krüger

115

8 A Lesson Study Professional Learning Network in secondary education135 Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger 9 Learning networks for sustainable literacy achievement Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

152

10 Getting beneath the surface: Examining the social side of Professional Learning Networks Joelle Rodway

172

11 Establishing sustainable school improvement through Professional Learning Networks Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

194

12 Looking back and moving forward: Where to next for networks of learning? Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

205

Index215

FIGURES

  0.1 The relationship between communities of practice and PLNs 3   1.1 Theory of action for how networks work 17   2.1 A model of the stepwise method 28   3.1 Structure of the four workshop approach 45   5.1 The data team intervention 77   6.1 Implementation of the NMS reform in ‘Generations’ 95   6.2 The roles and networks of Lerndesigners96   6.3 Emerging actions of Lerndesigners98   6.4 Genesis of Lerndesigner Network – horizontal and vertical networking103   6.5 Strands of OLLD – increasing activity actions 105   6.6 Triple Diamond Model of the Department of Innovation 109   8.1 A theoretical model of how lesson study produces instructional improvement 137   9.1 Knowledge sharing between PLNs in a school (intra-school) 163   9.2 Knowledge sharing between PLNs in a cluster (intra-cluster) 164   9.3 Knowledge sharing between a school and the cluster PLNs 164   9.4 Knowledge sharing example between the school and cluster PLNs 165 10.1 Child and Youth Mental Health organizational chart 174 10.2 CYMH General Information network 176 10.3 Density comparisons between CYMH’s general information and research knowledge networks  179 10.4 Star graph—a completely centralized network 181

x  Contents

10.5 CYMH research knowledge network map with nodes sized by indegree centrality 10.6 An illustration of the devolution of the research knowledge network once central figures are removed from the network map

186 187

TABLES

  2.1  Activities that took place prior to the TDT meetings 25   2.2 A summary of the main activities within and outside of the meetings31   3.1  Responses to the ‘ladder of research use’ scale 49   6.1 Key discourse topics at the OLLD 106   7.1 Categorization of concepts and practices of local educational landscapes in Germany 118   7.2 Categorization of concepts and practices of local educational landscapes in Germany with case studies 125   9.1  Intra-school and inter-school PLN characteristics 158 10.1 Centralization scores for the CYMH general information and research knowledge networks 182 10.2  Distribution of outdegree and indegree centrality scores 184

CONTRIBUTORS

Floor Binkhorst  received her Master’s degree in Natural Sciences at the Radboud

University in the Netherlands in 2010. With particular interest in science communication and education, she graduated with a Master’s thesis focused on secondary school students’ attitudes towards science and their career choices. Following her Master’s degree, Floor worked as a project manager at Kenniscentrum Bèta Techniek, which aimed to make science education more attractive. In this role, she experienced that teachers often play a crucial role in the effectiveness of such projects. Since 2013, Floor has been working as a PhD student at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. Her project is focused on Teacher Design Teams, in which secondary school teachers collaborate to (re)design educational materials. The aim of this project is to understand the functioning of Teacher Design Teams, and to develop tools that support the implementation of these teams. Floor will defend her dissertation in October 2017. Ulf Blossing  is an Associate Professor in Education at the Department of Education

and Special Education at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). He is the leader of the research environment PAGE, Power and Agency of Education, that encompasses about 30 researchers and 12 doctoral students. He is also the scientific leader of the Principal Program and the Master Program of Educational Leadership. His research interest is school improvement and leadership. He has, among other things, carried out actions research projects together with schools to investigate the role of change agents, and also the action of school leaders to improve organizational capacity. Lately he has been involved in a project on successful and unsuccessful schools. He is a member of the advisory board of the National Agency concerning the support of under-achieving schools.



Contributors xiii

Chris Brown (Editor)  is Professor of Education at the School of Education and Childhood Studies, University of Portsmouth (UK). With a long-standing interest in how evidence can aid education policy and practice, Chris has written four books (including Leading the Use of Research and Evidence in Schools), several papers and has presented on the subject at a number of international conferences in Europe and North America. Chris has extensive experience of leading a range of funded projects, many of which seek to help practitioners to identify and scale up best practice, and was recently awarded a significant grant by the Education Endowment Foundation to work with 100+ primary schools in England to increase their use of research. Other projects include an evaluation of England’s progress towards an ­evidence-informed school system (funded by England’s Department for Education). Alan J. Daly  is Professor and Chair of the Department of Education Studies at the

University of California, San Diego. Prior to this, Alan had over 16 years of public education experience in a variety of positions ranging from classroom teacher to district psychologist to site administrator, providing him with a solid grounding in the world of practice and so a grass roots understanding of how and why new practice is (or isn’t) adopted within schools. Daly and colleagues have substantive experience in leading projects that examine how school leaders and the leaders of school boards can best ensure that research, effective practice and other forms of knowledge and social capital can be used to improve student outcomes (e.g., see Finnigan and Daly, 2012). What’s more, Daly and his team have pioneered the use of social network analysis as a way to understand social networks in education. Anita Duveneck  is Researcher at the Institute for Future Educational Research

at the Freie Universität Berlin (FU). She works on Local Educational Politics with a critical focus on current local politics. Her findings are published and presented in international academia, but also in political and practical debates. She is advisory board member of German Transfer Agencies for Local Educational Management, works as an expert in the field of youth work and currently leads the research aspect of a collaborative project on education as strategy for urban development (funded by the federal ministry of education and research). Paige Fisher  is a Professor in the Faculty of Education atVancouver Island University. Her research interests include teacher education, formative assessment, culturally responsive pedagogy and collaborative professional learning. Current research projects include school integrated teacher education, global education, and schooling in rural and international contexts. Paige is a ‘scholar-practitioner’ – deeply embedded in her teaching practice both at the university and in diverse sites of learning. She is the Director of the Centre for Innovative Educational Leadership at VIU and has been a board member for CATE (Canadian Association for Teacher Education), NAC (Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre), Nuca Mat Tatalut (Collaborative Professional

xiv  Contributors

Learning for Nanaimo School District) and a Digest editor and board member for ICSEI (International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement). Andy Hargreaves  is the Thomas More Brennan Chair in the Lynch School of

Education at Boston College. Before that, he was the Co-founder and Co-director of the International Centre for Educational Change at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Andy has authored or edited over 30 books, several of which have achieved outstanding writing awards from the American Educational Research Association, the American Libraries Association, and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. One of these, Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School (with Michael Fullan, 2012) has received three prizes including the $100,000 Grawemeyer Award in Education for 2015. Andy serves as adviser in education to the Premier of Ontario, is founding editor of two scholarly journals, and is President-Elect of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. He holds an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Uppsala in Sweden. In January 2015, he was ranked the No. 6 scholar with most influence on US policy. Mireille D. Hubers is an Assistant Professor at the University of Twente (the Netherlands), Department of Educational Science. Her doctoral dissertation explored the ways in which educators built capacity within their school in order to sustain their data use. Mireille’s research focuses on the ways in which organizations can sustain their improvement strategies through individual and organizational learning. She publishes and presents her work regularly, for example in the 2017 article “Share and succeed: the development of knowledge sharing and brokerage in data teams’ network structures”. In addition, she organizes practical workshops to support organizations (such as schools) in facing their sustainability challenge. Michael Krüger is a Senior Researcher at the Ludwigsburg University of

Education (LUE) in Germany. He is the Vice Director of the Department of International Educational Leadership and Management as well as the coordinator of the International Education Management Program, an international master’s program that is offered in collaboration with the Helwan University, Egypt. Additionally, he is an accredited reviewer for quality management systems in educational organizations and draws on a long-standing work experience in non-formal educational settings. Michael has conducted many projects from the realm of educational management such as initiating quality management systems, moderating participation processes to develop mission statements, building up marketing strategies and controlling systems for educational organizations of any size. He has published on curricula of educational leadership programs. Mei Kuin Lai is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, University of

Auckland, New Zealand. She is also an Associate Director of the Woolf Fisher



Contributors xv

Research Centre, at the Faculty. Along with the colleagues in the centre, she was the recipient of the University of Auckland Research Excellence Award (2015). She has led or co-led numerous large-scale interventions to improve achievement for indigenous and ethnic minority groups, publishing in one of the highest ranking literacy-focused journals internationally. She presents and consults both locally (e.g., New Zealand Ministry of Education) and internationally (e.g., Malaysia, Sweden, and the Netherlands). Her research interests are the design of effective educational interventions to overcome educational disparities involving partnerships with schools and policy-makers, data discussions and practitioner research. Stuart McNaughton holds a personal chair as Professor of Education at the University of Auckland, New Zealand and is the Director of the Woolf Fisher Research Centre at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. Along with the colleagues in the centre, he was the recipient of the University of Auckland Research Excellence Award (2015). He is currently Chief Scientific Advisor to the New Zealand Ministry of Education, and an inductee into the International Reading Hall of Fame. He has been recently appointed to a visiting position of Distinguished Overseas Professor at East China Normal University, Shanghai. His research interests include the development of literacy and language, the role of culture in development, and the design of effective educational programs to overcome educational disparities. Jaana Nehez  works as a Lecturer and strategic school developer at the School and Youth Services Department in the city of Helsingborg, Sweden. As a strategic school developer, she facilitates school leaders and teachers in school improvement projects. For the last two years, she has been coach for four data teams consisting of school leaders and teachers who try to base their improvement work on data. She is also a PhD and works with teacher and school leader training at the University of Gothenburg and Halmstad University. In her research, she has focused on school leadership and school improvement. Her latest research project concerns teacher leaders. Cindy L. Poortman (Editor)  is an Assistant Professor at the University of Twente

(Netherlands). Her research focuses on teacher and school leader professional development in teams and networks. She is the project leader of the Dutch national project ‘Pilots for the development of professional learning communities’. This project involves 23 PLCs, each with 5–15 teachers from different schools, working on developing new learning material for their students, developing their research skills or both. She is also the co-project leader of the Datateam Projects, in which both within- and between-school teams of six to eight teachers and school leaders of more than 50 schools are coached in developing their databased decision-making knowledge and skills, and to solve educational problems at their school. Cindy also supervises a PhD project about (between-school) teacher design networks.

xvi  Contributors

Rilana Prenger  works as a post doc researcher at the University of Twente in the

Netherlands. She received her PhD in Psychology (2012). Her current research is in the field of teacher professional development, and she is involved in several projects in this area. In ‘Pilots for the development of professional learning communities’, 23 networked PLCs are being studied for their effectiveness and sustainability. In these PLCs, teachers from different schools are working on developing learning material, developing their research skills or both. Additionally, she works on the data team project, which includes both within- and between-school teams of six to eight teachers and school leaders from more than 50 schools. These teams are coached in developing their data-based decision-making knowledge and skills to solve educational problems at their school. Her research focuses on teachers’ individual psychological factors related to data use, and the sustainability of the data team project within the schools. Joelle Rodway is a visiting scholar and instructor at the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She is a former secondary school teacher and head of department who approaches her academic work from a practitioner-scholar’s point of view. Joelle’s primary area of research focuses on the role of social capital in whole system educational change. Specifically, she examines the ways that educators’ social networks mediate the ways in which they develop, understand, and implement education policy, and ultimately, how these processes affect the whole system improvement. She is currently working on multiple projects that sit at the intersection of leadership, policy, and educational change within Canada and the United States. Livia Roessler is a contract researcher at the University of Innsbruck’s Institute

for Teacher Education and School Research. Her interest and experience lie in educational innovation and change with a particular focus on educational leadership, school improvement and regional school development. In current projects (Modellregion Bildung Zillertal), she conducts research on success factors for a comprehensive school system and supportive structures for school improvement in nonurban areas. A key aspect of her work is the use of site-specific “developmental portraits” that focus on quality criteria and serve as a foundation for evidencebased school improvement within schools and with their partners. She also works at Austria’s National Center for Learning Schools, where she contributes to nationwide system reforms. She is also a member of the German-speaking Innovative Learning Environments Network. Kathy Sanford is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University

of  Victoria. Her research interests include teacher education, assessment, digital portfolios, nonformal and informal adult education, gender pedagogy, and multiliteracies. Current research projects include school integrated teacher education, education for professional learning in teacher education, and informal sites



Contributors xvii

of learning for youth and adults. Additionally, her research focuses on alternative spaces and places for learning, honoring indigenous ways of knowing, and integrating new technological pedagogies and tools for inclusive education and reconceptualized design. Collaboratively with educators in the field, Kathy has been reimagining and recreating learning environments in both schools and university environments as well as considering authentic forms of assessment that support and parallel British Columbia’s transformed curriculum. Recent publications include Finding the Connective Tissue in Teacher Education: Creating New Spaces for Professional Learning to Teach (2017) and Curriculum Theory and Teacher Education: Reframing the Relationship (2017). Kim Schildkamp is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Behavioural, Management, and Social Sciences of the University of Twente. Kim’s research, in the Netherlands but also in other countries, focuses on data-based decision making and formative assessment. She has been invited as a guest lecturer and keynote speaker at several conferences and universities, including AERA (American Educational Research Association), the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and the University of Auckland in New Zealand. She is the president-elect of ICSEI (International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement), and she is chair of the ICSEI data use network. She has won awards for her work, and she has published widely on the use of (assessment) data. She developed the datateam® procedure, and she is editor of the book Data-Based Decision Making in Education: Challenges and Opportunities, published by Springer. Leyton Schnellert is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia – Okanagan who works with collaborative inquiry teams throughout British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. His research attends to how teachers and teaching and learners and learning can mindfully embrace student diversity, inclusive education, self- and co-regulation and pedagogical practices that draw from students’ and teachers’ funds of knowledge to build participatory, collaborative, and culturally responsive learning communities. Leyton is the Pedagogy and Participation research cluster lead in UBCO’s Institute for Community Engaged Research and co-chair of British Columbia’s Rural Education Advisory. His scholarship takes up epistemological orientations to living and learning that are relational and community-honoring. Recent publications include Teachers as Self- and Co-regulating Learners (2016), The Inspirited Nature of Mindful Curricular Enactment’s Community (Re)making (2017), and Teacher,Team and School Change through Reciprocal Learning (2017). Louise Stoll engages in research and development activity that focuses on how

schools and local and national systems create capacity for learning, with an emphasis on professional learning communities and learning networks, creative leadership and leadership development. She also focuses on finding ways to help connect

xviii  Contributors

research and practice. In 2016 Louise was listed as one of Debrett’s 500 most influential people in Britain. A former President of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement and Fellow of England’s Academy for the Social Sciences, Professor Stoll is recognized as an expert in this area, with recent work examining how a networked PLC approach can serve to increase research use amongst middle leaders in Challenge Partner schools. Professor Stoll has also written extensively about and developed materials based on her research into effective PLCs (e.g., Stoll et al., 2006; Stoll, 2015). Pierre Tulowitzki is an Assistant Professor at the Ludwigsburg University of

Education (LUE) in Germany. He is the Director of the Department of International Educational Leadership and Management as well as the German Director of the International Education Management Program, an international master’s program that is coordinated in collaboration with the Helwan University, Egypt. Pierre has conducted, published and presented research on various topics from the realm of educational leadership and school improvement. Through workshops and conferences, he works together with schools and school leaders to navigate educational change. He serves as a board member of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) and as the Link Convenor of the Educational Leadership Network of the European Educational Research Association (EERA). Siebrich de Vries works as a teacher educator, researcher and project manager for Lesson Study at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. She studied French Language and Literature and Applied Linguistics at the University of Groningen and went on to work as a French teacher at various schools for secondary and higher vocational education in the northern region of the Netherlands. In 1991 she joined the University of Groningen, first as a teacher educator teaching about methods for French instruction, and later as a project manager in the field of teacher professional development in secondary and higher education. In 2014, she received her PhD; in her dissertation, she studied the relationship between teachers’ educational beliefs and their participation in professional development. Her current research and other professional activities in teacher education and in schools are all related to the implementation of Lesson Study in the Dutch educational context. Tanja Westfall-Greiter is Co-director of the National Center for Learning

Schools in Austria, where she is responsible for supporting professional networks connected to educational system reforms, including the “Neue Mittelschule” (New Middle School, NMS). She also is co-designer of the “Leading Learning” program in the Italian province of Trentino and has worked as a contract researcher at the University of Innsbruck’s Institute for Teacher Education and School Research. Her research focus is on vignette methodology for capturing school experiences, the phenomenon of learning and teacher leadership. She has been involved in a



Contributors xix

grant-funded research project oriented to personal learning and development in diverse classroom communities and continues to use the vignette methodology developed in the research team while visiting schools. The vignettes capturing students’ experiences serve as an evidence base for professional learning and self-evaluation. Tanja is a member of several networks worldwide and has been involved in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Both Cindy and Chris would like to offer their unlimited thanks to all those who helped to make this book possible as well as such a fantastic read. In addition to the chapter authors – who diligently wrote their great works and acted on our feedback – special thanks go to Alan Daly and Louise Stoll, who engaged with the work while still in draft form and from it produced a compelling and thoughtful discussion chapter. Thanks also go to Andy Hargreaves for his diligent and assiduous work in producing the foreword. We would also like to express our gratitude to both Routledge and the late Sam Stringfield for having faith in the role of networks and enabling and encouraging us to publish. Thank you too to the board of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement who agreed that we could convene a new ‘network on networks’ focused on promoting and facilitating the study of Professional Learning Networks. Finally a big thank you to our family and friends for their continued support.

FOREWORD Andy Hargreaves

The collaborative power of social capital is on the rise globally as a strategy for educational improvement and also for uplifting the teaching profession and promoting teacher leadership. At the same time, there are many ways to collaborate, not all of them are always effective, and different kinds of collaboration may be a good or poor fit for the cultures in which they occur. There is a lot yet to be learned about professional collaboration and the conditions under which it provides benefits for professional practice and student achievement. Since the late 1980s, there has been repeated evidence to show that on average, schools where teachers work collaboratively and develop high levels of personal and professional trust outperform ones with similar student demographics where teachers work in isolation. Since this time, many new forms of professional collaboration have been deliberately designed and created such as professional learning communities, data teams, lesson study and networks of schools practicing improvement science. Professional collaboration has also become more self-conscious in referring to previous practice and evidence when building its own architectures of social capital such as in network design. These emerging and expanding designs do not look exactly alike irrespective of where they appear and the forms they take also vary between different countries and cultures. Following the research on the value of cultures of collaboration over ones of individualism, policy-makers in many countries have directed attention and associated funding to deliberately designed collaborative protocols and processes. The research teams I work with, for instance, have, with the support of federal funding, helped to construct a network of rural schools in the Pacific Northwest, with a view to developing teachers’ professional capital so teachers can increase students’ engagement with their learning and their communities. This network and its specific architecture was constructed based on a review of existing research on effective and less effective networks in education, and on evaluations we had conducted of preceding networks in Canada and the UK.

xxii  Foreword

It is now time to learn how effective the various structures and strategies for collaboration are in terms of realizing their desired outcomes of improved quality and equity in student learning. Do the benefits of lesson study extend beyond the observed lesson itself? Will data teams persist as part of the ongoing culture of a school once external funding and university partners have been withdrawn? Educational research in this area now seems to be aligned with a good deal of evidence-informed and data-driven educational policy rather than opposing or critiquing that policy. Does the research confirm positive impact? Does it also, where relevant, also raise questions about the policies themselves? This important and timely book brings together some of the best research knowledge from around the world on the nature and impact of deliberately designed Professional Learning Networks or PLNs. The chapters include descriptions and evaluations of PLNs in the form of teacher design teams in the Netherlands, data teams in Sweden, research networks that circulate evidence-informed practice in the UK, a network of schools engaged in lesson study in the Netherlands, collaborative inquiry in Canada, learning design teachers in Austria, cross-school networks in New Zealand and networks of different partners working together to achieve educational turnaround of a whole locality. The investigation asks questions about what is effective and what isn’t, whether impact can outlast initial funding, how teacher leaders in “flat” career systems handle standing out from their colleagues, and whether networks of problem-solving and data-driven interventions over short periods are paying sufficient attention to deeper learning processes and goals beyond conventional achievement or enthusiasm for particular subjects or not. This book is on the leading edge of the latest collaborative wave in education. The important debates about collaboration now are no longer about whether it is a good thing or not but about how to undertake it with precise designs that promote inquiry, reflection, better practice and increased commitment to change. Chris Brown and Cindy Poortman are among the leading thinkers of their generation in this area of work and their own global networks through their participation in the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) and other communities have helped circulate the best global knowledge to make this collection of chapters into a state-of-the-art statement about how to design and develop collaborative efforts that make a positive difference. Networks used to be things that bound elites together. Then they became the means by which young professionals could build a career. Brains and biology operate according to networks. So does digital technology. Networks are inescapable. But they are not always desirable. There are criminal and terrorist networks as well as networks that promote social good. And there are networks that waste people’s time or distract them from what is important as well as ones that circulate professional knowledge for greater benefit. Read the chapters in this book, and there is more chance that your own collaborative networks will succeed and be sustained. Andy Hargreaves Brennan Chair in Education, Boston College, USA Co-author of Professional Capital:Transforming Teaching in Every School

INTRODUCTION Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

A growing number of school leaders and policy-makers are increasingly turning their attention to Professional Learning Networks as a way of improving education in schools and across school systems. This focus is also reflected in academia, where educational researchers, such as Hargreaves (2010) and Stoll (2015), argue that learning networks are fundamental to achieving effective school improvement. Munby and Fullan (2016) too suggest that learning networks situated at a cluster or district level will be a driving force for local- and system-level change.What’s more, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016) argues that, to be successful, 21st-century learning organizations, schools must learn from the networks in which they reside. A key driver for this current emphasis on networks is nicely encapsulated by Stoll, who argues that “the increased complexity of a fast changing world has brought new challenges for schooling that are too great for those in any one school to address alone” (2010: 4). PLNs also provide the opportunity to achieve cost-effective educational change at scale (Hargreaves, 2010). The implications of this focus are clear: there is now a real need to ensure teachers participate in learning network activity as well as share the learning that results from this activity with others. In this context, we define Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) as any group who engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice (Wenger, 1998), in order to improve teaching and learning in their school(s) and/or the school system more widely. Our focus therefore encompasses a huge range of between-school or school-plus-other-organization network types, including research- or data use teams, multi-site lesson study teams, teacher design teams, whole-child support teams and so on. As we will show in this book, networks can vary in composition, nature and focus: they may consist of teachers and/or school leaders from different schools, teachers with local or national policymakers, teachers and other stakeholders and many other potential combinations.

2  Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

In many cases, networks will also form in partnership or involve joint work with academic researchers. Our interest in networks stems from our firsthand experience of using PLNs to support school improvement. But there is also research evidence to support this approach. In particular, studies suggest that teacher collaboration in learning networks can lead to improved teaching practice and increased student learning (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Vescio et al., 2008). Such improvements occur because effective learning networks are those that meet the necessary criteria for successful professional development. In other words, because effective PLNs involve the type of long-term collaboration that enables participants to draw down on the expertise of others in order to develop new approaches to teaching and learning. Nonetheless, despite our starting point that PLNs can significantly contribute to educational improvement, harnessing the benefits of learning networks is not without challenge. Of particular note is that participation in learning networks does not automatically improve practice, with research indicating that many factors need to be in place before networks can be successful. In addition, there are many learning network types to choose from, and it may not always be clear which are likely to be most effective in any given set of circumstances. Schools and individuals also often find it difficult to determine beforehand the optimal relationship between their personal goals, the goals of the network and the time and effort required to make such a network successful. Furthermore, a key factor for success is the individual motivation of participating educators, as well as whether participants have sufficient time and the opportunity to actively and meaningfully engage. In response, this book is designed to provide teachers and school leaders, as well as researchers and policy-makers, with a means to better understand and navigate these challenges. We do so by marrying both research and practice in order to discuss and address key issues such as: ••

•• ••

What types of Professional Learning Networks and which network goals connect best to schools’ aims, and the requirements made of schools by accountability bodies and others? What does the Professional Learning Network process look like? How do participants achieve the goals of a PLN? What do we know that can help teachers and schools to successfully set up, participate in and sustain successful Professional Learning Networks?

Approaching the book in this way means that as you read through it, you will engage with actual cases of different types of networks and the learning activity that takes place within them, as well as the thinking underpinning these networks. What’s more, by describing the impact such networks have had, you will gain an understanding of the practical considerations for how to utilize learning networks effectively. We begin this introductory chapter, however, by further exploring what we mean by networks and providing an initial outline of the factors that influence their success.

Introduction  3 Community of practice e.g. academic researchers

Community of practice e.g. school teachers

Community of practice e.g. school teachers Professional Learning Network comprising of teachers from a number of schools and academic researchers

FIGURE 0.1 

The relationship between communities of practice and PLNs.

Defining characteristics As noted above, we define PLNs as comprising individuals from one or more schools and/or other interested organizations, who have come together from outside of their everyday community of practice to focus on achieving specific goals. This definition enables us to characterize PLNs through the use of three key features: geography, composition (or membership) and the nature of learning involved. To aid this characterization, our conceptualization of PLNs is set out graphically in Figure 0.1. Here each black dot or white star represents an individual (e.g., a teacher or academic researcher).The arrows meanwhile represent connections and so flows of information or other forms of social capital that occur between individuals. As can be seen, there are two types of groupings of individuals represented in Figure 0.1. The first, demarcated by the dotted circles, are everyday communities of practice (CoP) (e.g., a whole school or subject department).The second type of grouping – the mass of black dots in the centre of the diagram – represents a Professional Learning Network. In the three communities of practice presented in Figure 0.1, the members of the PLN are those individuals who are white stars. Thus, it can be seen that PLNs are comprised of individuals with connections that stretch beyond the dotted circles and into the network of individuals at the centre of the diagram. At the same time, as the number of white stars indicates, PLNs typically comprise a small number of individuals from each CoP rather than a whole school approach. As noted above, the implications of Figure 0.1 can be considered in terms of geography, membership and the nature of the learning involved.These three aspects are now explored in more detail: Geography: The dotted circles in Figure 0.1 are designed to indicate that, typically, teachers belong to everyday communities of practice with defined boundaries; these boundaries being physical/geographical (i.e., representing the school) as well as potentially also content related in nature. Networks, on the other hand, are

4  Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

unlikely to be defined by space or the boundaries of a setting, but instead will be characterized by sets of relationships between individuals and groups, often linked by subject type or a more general problem area (e.g., modern foreign languages or using assessment for learning strategies). At the same time, network members will also have links (arrows) back into the communities of which they are part, such as their home school or department. This highlights that the learning undertaken within PLNs has a route back into the ‘home’ communities of PLN members. Membership: Typically communities comprise professionals of one type, e.g., teachers or researchers, or even specific types of teachers (such as special needs coordinators or maths teachers). Networks may however include a range of professions and expertise. In the case of networks in education, as well as teachers, Professional Learning Networks might comprise other local services with an interest in education (such as the police, youth justice, social services or health services), researchers and academics working in education, stakeholders such as parents and care providers, or possibly even local employers and businesses. It is this diverse membership that affords the members of PLNs with a rich resource of ideas and perspectives with which to engage and learn from. The nature of learning involved in PLNs: Because of their geographical boundedness, when communities engage in learning activity (e.g., through establishing in-school professional learning communities), this activity will typically feature regular, mutual observation of practice; the engagement by members in joint planning and curriculum development; the tacit knowledge of members constantly converted into shared knowledge through face-to-face interaction; and members collectively applying new ideas and information to develop common solutions to common problems (Stoll et al., 2006). Networks, on the other hand, provide alternative opportunities for learning. Because they facilitate the flow of knowledge, expertise and other forms of social capital, networks provide access to multiple and diverse perspectives. As a result, networks provide the potential for a vast array of approaches to joint problem solving as practitioners draw down on the manifold resources available through their network to find new ways to tackle pressing problems (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2010; Wenger et al., 2011). Unlike within communities, however, network learning is not entirely collective. Instead, it is more individualized and so specific to each member (or subgroup of members) of the network, their context and the specific problem they are trying to solve – which will tend to be determined by their ‘home’ community. In the case of multi-agency networks, learning is often bounded by the domain of the problem (e.g., learning might be bounded by the domains of research, policy and practice; similarly it could be bounded by profession, such as education, social and health care). In the real world, of course, elements of both network and community tend to operate in any activity that has the ultimate aim of improving student outcomes: communities typically involve networks of relationships, and networks exist because their members are all interested in common areas of concern (Wenger et al., 2011). With this book, however, we attempt to foreground the network aspect of learning without diminishing or ignoring community aspects. As a result, what we focus on are educators who move beyond any everyday community to which they belong,

Introduction  5

in order to learn about how teaching and learning might be improved. Because of this focus, however, it is also important to consider how some of the fundamental aspects of community might come into play when thinking about networks. In particular, how we might foster, within networks, the type of collaboration that exists in the most effective professional learning communities. What’s more, since communities tend to be holistic in nature, whereas networks typically involve only some individuals from any given school or setting, how can we ensure that others outside of networks can benefit from the learning that takes place within them. Related issues include, therefore, achieving deep collaboration within networks as well as the use of boundary crossing and brokerage in order to share information effectively. Further detail on these two concepts is provided in Chapter 1. Finally, it is important to consider the supporting conditions that will impact on the effectiveness of learning networks. These include policy, professional, cultural and contextual aspects, the network mindset or orientation of participants as well as the support for networks that currently exists. These will be explored more fully in Chapter 1, where we examine how networks work. It is worth iterating here, however, that in the most successful networks, connectivity is not left to happenstance; and generally more successful networks tend to be those which put in place structures and processes/activities so that network members are enabled to come together to engage, to learn and to develop approaches to solving problems. Correspondingly, successful networks are those which have deliberately fostered interactivity through the use of formal communication structures; ensuring key people and organizations are members, and that there are formal roles in networks (Briscoe et al., 2015). Likewise, successful learning networks are those that create opportunities (including time and space) for collaboration and co-creation and reaffirm the importance to members of being part of the network (thus ensuring people are motivated and incentivized to continue their involvement). What’s more, where there are formal roles involved, these are utilized to provide strategic direction for the network; ensuring that collaboration and other related activities are coordinated rather than sporadic (Briscoe et al., 2015). This raises the issue of the vital role of leadership, both of learning networks themselves, which can be formal or informal; but also the role of school leaders (and the leaders of other stakeholder groups) in ensuring that engagement in network activity by teaching staff is supported. This support potentially materializes through acts of transformational leadership – network leaders establishing structures, policies and procedures and providing resources to enable the network to flourish and allow members to participate. Also the role of learningcentred leadership: for example, school leaders taking part in network activity so they understand what is required as well as model expected network behavior to others (Day & Sammons, 2013; Southworth, 2009).

Content Moving now to the book itself, Chapter 1 (‘The importance of Professional Learning Networks’), continues with some of the themes explored above. It begins

6  Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

by providing an overview that sets out the current educational vista and, specifically, the expectation now for teachers to be “high-level knowledge workers who constantly advance their own professional knowledge as well as that of their profession” (Schleicher, 2012: 11). The chapter then explores how professional networks of teachers form the most viable way for teachers and schools to build their capacity to improve pedagogy and student outcomes both within and across schools. As well as providing detail on why networks should work, we also use the chapter to set out some of the key factors that can help or hinder the effectiveness of networks, including five suggested elements for successful PLNs: focus, collaboration, reflective professional inquiry, leadership, and group and individual learning. Following this overview, Chapters 2–9 provide examples of PLNs – with each chapter representing a case study of learning network practice. The purpose of these cases is to give teachers and school leaders food for thought in terms of how they might engage with and harness networks to improve teaching and learning. In Chapter 2 the first case (‘Balancing top-down and shared leadership: A case study of a Teacher Design Team in transition to a new approach’), written by Floor Binkhorst, examines Teacher Design Teams (TDTs). TDTs are networks in which secondary school teachers from different schools collaborate to (re)design innovative educational materials. As Floor discusses, TDTs can contribute to teachers’ professional growth and to the successful implementation of educational innovations, but only when the right conditions for doing so are in place. In particular, Floor uses the chapter to describe a case study of a TDT with chemistry teachers in the Netherlands, which was monitored for two consecutive years. In the first year, participants reported a lack of meaningful and structured support and guidance, with the resulting outcomes for teachers and students considered disappointing. In the second year, however, a new and more structured, guided approach was introduced leading to greater impact for the teachers involved. Floor concludes by setting out the type of guidance and structures that might benefit learning networks more generally. In Chapter 3, ‘Research Learning Networks: A case study in using networks to increase knowledge mobilization at scale’, Chris Brown explores the role of networks in facilitating evidence-informed practice. As Chris explains, Research Learning Networks (RLNs) were devised as a way of using networks of schools to connect research to practice at scale. This chapter will discuss RLNs as a concept and demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach by focusing on one specific RLN: a teaching school alliance situated in the south coast of England. It begins by setting out the origins of the RLN project; the theoretical and conceptual thinking that underpins the model as well as the practical elements of how RLNs are run and delivered. The case study then illustrates how this networked approach has led not only to teachers within this alliance of schools engaging in researchinformed practice, but also how this practice has resulted in transformed teaching and improved student outcomes across participating schools. Chapter 4 (Leyton Schnellert, Paige Fisher and Kathy Sanford’s ‘Developing communities of pedagogical inquiry in British Columbia’) provides an example of

Introduction  7

a network that comprises multiple stakeholders from a range of education sectors and expertise. The chapter focuses on British Columbia, where researchers at three universities have formed local networked inquiry hubs. The membership of these hubs includes teacher educators, teacher candidates, educators from schools and school districts, and representatives from the Ministry of Education, and their aim is to support educational transformation through in situ pre-service and in-service collaboration. This partnership connects innovative models of teacher education with local school districts as they seek to reduce the ‘difficult gap’ between research and practice through implementation of BC’s newly redesigned curriculum. As such, all participants in the hubs engage together in cycles of action and critically reflective dialogue in order to support transformational shifts in the education system as well as inspire one another towards pedagogical renewal. In Chapter 5 (‘From data to learning: A data team Professional Learning Network’), Kim Schildkamp, Jaana Nehez and Ulf Blossing discuss the use of networks by data teams. After an initial exposition of the role of data teams in using data to improve education, their chapter sets out how data teams within one Swedish municipality formed a learning network in order to improve the effectiveness and reach of the data team model. As well as examining the impact of this approach and its effects, Kim, Jaana and Ulf also reflect on how the data teams have promoted and secured support for the continued development of the learning network, ensuring its effectiveness is maintained over time. Chapter 6, meanwhile, sees Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter move from the physical to the virtual in their examination of Austria’s Lerndesigner ­network (‘The dynamics of Virtual Professional Learning in interschool networks’). Launched in 2012, the Lerndesigner network represents a system-wide professionalization initiative that seeks to achieve equity and excellence through the use of Lerndesigners: teacher leaders with specific expertise in the areas of curriculum and instructional development (‘Lerndesign’). Beyond national face-to-face events, Lerndesigners connect online via a virtual Professional Learning Network, known as the ‘Meta-Course’. The benefit of this type of virtual networking and learning space is that it enables Lerndesigners to safely exchange ideas and receive feedback on their development work. Acknowledging the future role of virtual networks, the chapter closes with recommendations for future digital networking activity as well as suggestions for using virtual networks as inputs for system-wide Professional Learning Network activities. In Chapter 7 (‘A Professional Learning Network for the entire local education system: Educational landscapes in Germany’), Pierre Tulowitzki, Anika Duveneck and Michael Krüger further expand the concept of PLNs by exploring ‘educational landscapes’. Recognizing that education also occurs outside of formal settings, the chapter argues that viewing the school as an isolated institution is insufficient and that increased complexity needs to be met by increased collaboration. This chapter explains the notion of an educational landscape and how educational landscapes provide one form of Professional Learning Network. To do so, the history of educational landscapes in Germany is briefly explained, followed by a comparison

8  Chris Brown and Cindy L. Poortman

between educational landscapes and Professional Learning Networks. Next, the functioning and impact of educational landscapes is examined by employing the examples of three major German programs for educational landscapes as well as their evaluations. Finally, the merits, challenges and restrictions of bringing an educational landscape from vision to reality are demonstrated using the case study of the ‘Rütli’ school in Berlin. The penultimate case study in Chapter 8 (‘A lesson study Professional Learning Network in secondary education’) explores a networked lesson study model from the Netherlands, and examines its impact on teacher outcomes over a three-year period. As Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger explain, the aim of their project was to develop Dutch language teachers’ activating and differentiating skills in the domain of reading in secondary education. The chapter describes the key aspects as well as the structure of the authors’ networked lesson study approach and assesses the relevant processes and influencing factors that led to its success. Lastly, Chapter 9 (the final case study chapter), continues the literacy theme by investigating learning networks set up to promote the sustainability of literacy interventions in New Zealand (‘Learning networks for sustainable literacy achievement’). The interventions in question specifically improved achievement for indigenous and ethnic minority students, and as Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton discuss, in an attempt to prolong their effect, school leaders decided to collaboratively analyze and employ student data in networks, both within and between their schools. This, Mei and Stuart suggest, has ensured that impact continues to sustain some two years after the end of the intervention. Following this exploration of PLNs case studies, Joelle Rodway uses Chapter 10 (‘Getting beneath the surface: Examining the social side of Professional Learning Networks’) to set out how, moving forward, we can begin to understand PLNs more effectively. In the chapter, Joelle argues that if we are to ensure that Professional Learning Network goals are met and desired outcomes achieved, it is vital to examine how network members connect with research, policy and practice for their professional learning. Correspondingly, the chapter serves as an introduction to social network analysis, a methodological approach used to study Professional Learning Networks. Specifically, it introduces and explains core social network concepts and measures, using findings from a recent study, which examined how a learning network approach supported the development of research-informed school mental health policy in school districts in Ontario. Building on from the case studies and the social network analysis chapter, the last two chapters of the book serve to spotlight some of the crucial challenges facing PLNs by bringing together the themes explored and lessons learned. The first of these chapters is Mireille Hubers and Cindy Poortman’s: ‘Establishing sustainable school improvement through Professional Learning Networks’. In the chapter, Mireille and Cindy explain what sustained school improvement means, before providing practical examples of how PLNs can be supported in order to achieve sustained improvement in schools. To do so, they revisit the factors and conditions first established in Chapter 1 (‘Focus, collaboration, individual/group learning, reflective

Introduction  9

professional inquiry, leadership and boundary crossing’). In Chapter 12 (‘Looking back and moving forward: Where to next for networks of learning?’), meanwhile, Alan Daly and Louise Stoll draw together the themes explored in the book, to provide a powerful discussion of the current state of play of this nascent approach to school and system improvement. They also examine ‘what next’ for the use of networks, concluding with a series of challenging questions for researchers and educators wishing to harness PLNs to improve teaching and learning.

References Baker-Doyle, K. and Yoon, S. A. (2010). Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in Teacher Professional Development. In Daly, A. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press). Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain, Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Briscoe, P., Pollock, K., Campbell, C. and Carr-Harris, S. (2015). Finding the sweet spot: Network structures and processes for increased knowledge mobilization, Brock Education Journal, 25 (1), 19–34. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future (New York: Teachers College Press). Day, C. and Sammons, P. (2013). Successful leadership: A review of the international literature (Berkshire, UK: CfBT Education Trust). Hargreaves, D. (2010). Creating a self-improving school system, available at: http://dera.ioe. ac.uk/2093/1/download%3Fid%3D133672%26filename%3Dcreating-a-self-improvingschool-system.pdf, accessed on 6 July 2016. Munby, S. and Fullan, M. (2016). Inside-out and downside-up: How leading from the middle has the power to transform education systems, available at: www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2016/02/Global-Dialogue-Thinkpiece.pdf, accessed on 6 July 2016. OECD (2016). What makes a school a learning organization, available at: www.oecd.org/ education/school/school-learning-organisation.pdf, accessed on 25 July 2016. Schleicher, A. (2012) (Ed.). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from around the world, available at: www.oecd.org/site/eduistp2012/49850576.pdf, accessed on 7 November 2016. Southworth, G. (2009). Learning centred leadership. In Davies, B. (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (2nd edition) (London; Sage). Stoll, L. (2010). Professional learning community. International Encyclopedia of Education, 151–157. Stoll, L. (2015). Using evidence, learning and the role of professional learning communities. In Brown, C. (Ed.). Leading the use of research and evidence in schools (London: IOE Press). Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature, Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Vescio,V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Wenger, E., Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework (Ruud de Moor Centrum: Open Universiteit, Netherlands).

1 THE IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NETWORKS Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

1.1 Introduction This chapter examines the current educational landscape as a framework for the growing international focus on Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). Policy demands in our increasingly complex society are important drivers for this focus. These international policy demands are outlined in the chapter along with the nascent focus on partnerships and networks (Section 1.2). At the same time, we ask how PLNs can be expected to address these demands. We explore this question by examining ‘how networks work’ (Section 1.3), before delving deeper into the supporting conditions required for PLNs (Section 1.4), how the learning that takes place in PLNs can transfer from the individual to the school (Section 1.5) and the notion of boundary crossing (Section 1.6). In the final section (1.7), we argue that Professional Learning Networks form the most viable way for teachers and schools to improve pedagogy and student outcomes both within and across schools. Moreover, we outline how the subsequent chapters provide extensive examples of the myriad ways in which PLNs can be pursued, and the challenges that teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders face in their realization.

1.2 Policy demands for partnerships and learning networks Policy demands in today’s increasingly complex society are important drivers for networked forms of professional development. There is now an international focus on school improvement to better prepare students for the workforce demands of the 21st century (Schleicher, 2012). Individuals in this new space must be capable of constantly adapting, learning, growing and collaborating (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012; Binkley et al., 2012), as well as positioning themselves to be contributing members in a fast-changing world. Preparing current students for this future requires teachers

The importance of PLNs  11

to become “high-level knowledge workers who constantly advance their own professional knowledge as well as that of their profession” (Schleicher, 2012: 11). In this context, high quality, continuing professional learning and development is necessary to ensure that all teachers are able to meet the demands of diverse student populations (Kools & Stoll, 2016; Schleicher, 2012). Furthermore, educators learning both from colleagues and others (e.g. university researchers) is considered an effective way to support them in rethinking their own practice and improving instruction (Vescio et al., 2008). This suggests that efforts at school improvement should now be framed within a broader context, moving from the school as a single unit to considering the connections between schools, central offices and others in networks (Finnigan et al., 2015). PLNs of teachers “committed to and capable of creating deep and broad teaching and learning” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009: 107) represents a promising approach to achieving continuous school improvement. It is of no surprise therefore that PLNs are now actively being pursued: as Stringfield and Sellers (2016) observe, in the US, the formal role of networks and networking is higher than at any previous time in educational history. Indeed, the contribution to this book by authors from a number of countries including the US, Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Germany and England shows the global relevance the notion of Professional Learning Networks now has.

1.3 How networks work In the introduction to this book, we define Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) as any group who engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice (Wenger, 1998), in order to improve teaching and learning in their school(s) and/or the school system more widely. For the purposes of this book, PLNs always comprise teachers, but other types of members may also be included, such as school leaders and policymakers. In connection with the educational landscape described above, the focus of this book is principally on PLNs with members from different schools (and possibly other organizations), rather than on teacher teamwork within schools. The assumption underpinning this book is that such networks are essential for school and system improvement. However, we also know that mixed results or only small effects have been reported in extant research (e.g. Chapman & Muijs, 2014; Lomos et al., 2011; Prenger et al., in press). In other words, we know that PLNs do not automatically lead to school and system improvement. According to Chapman (2014), moving from a within-school to a between-school approach is especially challenging, let alone using PLNs to improve an entire system. This calls for a clear theory of action that explains how participation within PLNs by educators such as teachers and school leaders can contribute to learning. This theory of action should also include a proposed pathway for how educators’ learning subsequently leads to improved education, both in individual schools and beyond (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013). The scope of any conceptual framework for PLNs thus needs to encompass individual learning, group learning, organizational learning, and the school and system contexts within which PLNs operate (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013).

12  Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

Correspondingly, our conceptual framework for PLNs has at its center an operational theory of how professional development activities can influence student outcomes (Earl et al., 2006). From this perspective, educators’ learning in a PLN is required to lead to major changes in the practices and structures of schools. In turn, these changes are required to lead to improved student learning. Consequently, our general line of reasoning is that (1) if teachers experience effective professional development through participation in PLNs; (2) this will help develop their knowledge, skills, and attitudes; (3) this new knowledge, skills, and attitudes can then be used to improve the content of their instruction, their pedagogy, or both; and (4) improvements to content or pedagogy will subsequently lead to increased learning amongst students (Desimone et al., 2013). What is also clear, however, is that wide-scale improvements in student learning will be a function of how PLN members share their knowledge and skills with other colleagues in their everyday communities of practice (e.g. their school). As such, we discuss the exchange and brokerage of learning from PLN to school in more detail in Sections 1.5 and 1.6. First, however, we delve into the second central element in our conceptual framework: the set of conditions that support effective professional development in PLNs.

1.4 Conditions for effective PLNs Current literature on PLNs suggests that there are five key conditions supporting the ability of PLNs to drive changes in practice and student learning. Although different studies present slightly different terms, in general these conditions are represented by the ideas of focus, collaboration, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and group and individual learning. It is important to note that these conditions are relevant to and require attention both at the level of the network and at the level of the schools of the participating educators (Earl et al., 2006). The first key condition is focus. Focus refers to the existence of a shared goal or sense of purpose among educators and the degree to which they agree with their school’s mission and their school’s operational principles (Lomos et al., 2011; van Veen et al., 2010). For a PLN, focus refers to the shared sense of purpose among individual members (from different schools and/or organizations) and how this coheres to the specific goal(s) of the PLN. The goals for participation set by the schools as well as the goals of individual members are likely to influence this shared sense of purpose. For example, a PLN could be focused on developing new lesson material in the context of a new examination program for chemistry (see Chapter 2). The different schools of the participating teachers may have a variety of reasons for having their teachers participate in the PLN, however. For instance, some schools may have a more general goal of wanting to focus teachers’ allotted professional development time specifically towards developing lesson material that can be used in practice. The support teachers experience for participating and communicating PLN outcomes to colleagues will likely be influenced by such school-level goals. The teachers themselves may have specific ideas about their goals as well, ranging

The importance of PLNs  13

from ‘exchanging ideas with others’, to developing material for specific chemistry lessons (again, see Chapter 2). In the case of data teams (see Chapter 5), schools may want their teachers to learn about how to use data to deal with all kinds of educational problems. Teachers themselves may agree with this idea, or they might only be interested in solving the educational problem they regard to be immediately at hand. Goals at the PLN, school and individual levels need not be identical, but the PLN will not be effective if these goals contradict each other. Even if the shared goal of the PLN is not clearly determined at the start of the PLN, it is important that all members work together on formulating and subsequently working toward such a goal. A clear and agreed-upon focus (on student learning) provides vision and direction for really building capacity and sharing learning, without the risk of being distracted by all sorts of other initiatives and activities (Earl et al., 2006; Katz & Earl, 2010): such a focus has also been shown to have a significant impact on teaching practice (Katz & Earl, 2010). The second and most frequently cited supporting condition is collaboration (e.g. see Katz & Earl, 2010; Lomos et al., 2011; Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). Collaboration in a PLN should go beyond superficial exchange of help, support, or assistance. Instead, deep collaboration entails teachers not only exchanging ideas, but also discussing the underlying beliefs guiding their teaching. In deep collaboration, teachers share and clarify their pedagogical motives which direct how teaching and learning should be structured (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Collaboration engages teachers in opening up their beliefs and practices to investigation and debate (Katz & Earl, 2010). For successful collaboration, active participation is important (Voogt et al., 2011; Huffman & Jacobson, 2003). The challenge for PLNs, therefore, is how participants might engage effectively with, and maximize the benefits of, having access to the range of knowledge, experience and expertise present within the learning network. The third condition is reflective professional inquiry, which refers to the conversations teachers have about serious educational issues or problems (Lomos et al., 2011). Teachers should be actively and collectively questioning ineffective teaching routines while finding proactive means to acknowledge and respond to differences and conflict (Little, 2005). As we show in later chapters (e.g. Chapter 3), this challenge can often be met through facilitated approaches such as ‘learning conversations’: conversations structured to help teachers make sense of various forms of evidence in order to drive real changes in student learning (Earl & Timperley, 2008). The fourth condition, meanwhile, is leadership (Huffman & Jacobson, 2003; Katz & Earl, 2010). Both formal and informal leaders within the schools and the PLN have a crucial role to play in stimulating focus, providing both intellectual and instrumental support, monitoring development, and disseminating information (Earl et al., 2006). What’s more, the importance of providing time and other resources is repeatedly acknowledged in the literature (ibid.). At the same time, time and resources (or lack thereof) remain one of the biggest challenges to professional learning for school staff (Kools & Stoll, 2016). Again, leadership is instrumental in ensuring that such support is provided.

14  Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

The fifth and final condition is group and individual learning. Explicit attention to both individual and group learning promotes effectiveness. For example, individual members’ prior knowledge and motivation will influence their own learning.These also influence the team’s progress, however. Having individual members with various backgrounds, for example, can be experienced as impeding if some members are (or rapidly move) ahead in their thinking and learning in relation to the focus area, or are generally more motivated to spend time on PLN activity. At the same time, variation in backgrounds can also prove to be an advantage if different perspectives can provide input for discussion and reflection enabling all participants to learn. In turn, progress made and activities undertaken by the PLN will also influence individuals, leading to self-reinforcing learning loops. It is important to note that these supporting conditions are interconnected (Earl et al., 2006). Changes in one or more conditions are likely to trigger changes in other conditions. A key question that remains, however, is what learning in the network looks like. How can the step from individual to group learning and learning beyond the PLN be accomplished? We examine this question in the next section.

1.5 Learning in PLNs and their school organizations To understand how to achieve (school-wide) improvement in the schools of PLN members, we need to explore how PLNs can bring about organizational learning in these schools (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013). Organizational learning is a process leading to changes in the practices of the organization (Ellström, 2001), such as routines, mediated through individual learning. Changing routines with the ultimate goal of improving student learning can be challenging. On the one hand, the policy context of schools, as described in Section 1.2, may advocate PLNs as a way of working towards school improvement (for example, in order to achieve researchinformed teaching practice – see Chapter 3). On the other, problems occur when PLNs’ professional inquiry and collaboration result in conclusions about necessary changes that rub against current practice: not only in the participating schools, but also within the larger policy context generally advocating PLNs. For instance, actually discussing reflectively what needs to be improved (and how) can present considerable challenges. ‘Mismatches’ between what is happening in the current situation and what should happen, for example regarding student learning, may be a powerful impetus for learning, but may also be difficult to admit (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013). These mismatches could already be a challenge within the PLN itself, but this can be further complicated by the influence of national and local policy as well as by the policies and practices within the schools of the participating PLN members. What’s more, the type of learning needed to change routines, that is, to explore the gaps between the current situation and the improvement required, may go against the ideas of colleagues and supervisors in the schools, or against the expectations and regulatory mechanisms of the policy context (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013). Considering current practice reflectively can present challenges even in PLNs

The importance of PLNs  15

where the intent is to improve education, especially in a climate of accountability and high-stakes testing. For instance, Godfrey (2017) notes how accountability systems focused on a need to (im)prove effectiveness may ‘compete’ for space with the world of teaching practice. This notion can be transferred to teachers professionalizing in networks. Teachers may need to experiment and reflect to find strategies for improvement, but pressure to focus on student achievement and current rules and regulations may, at the same time, obstruct them in trying out new approaches. This means that both at the school level and within the larger context, PLNs not only need facilitation to help their members work together effectively, but also to help members be able to apply the results of this work (see for example Chapter 4, and specifically Section 4.5). When considering learning within the PLN, we also need to take into account that learning results from the interaction between the social environment and the individual learner (Illeris, 2003; Poortman, 2007). Individual members contribute ideas and knowledge to the PLN. However, this does not automatically become shared knowledge within the group. Contributing ideas and knowledge may have the form of simply presenting anecdotes, retelling teacher and student interactions, and generalizing from these ‘replays’ to future practice (Schildkamp et al., 2016). This form of contribution is unlikely to lead to an opening up of ‘mismatches’ as described above. Instead, educators should take the opportunities afforded by working collaboratively within PLNs to examine these replays more closely, reflecting on the meaning of problems, their possible causes, and further questions. For significant learning to occur, educators therefore first need to investigate why problems and challenges in their practice exist (Van Lare & Brazer, 2013).This opens up opportunities for organizational learning at their schools. However, the dissemination of what was learned in teacher groups often does not travel far (Hall and Horn, 2012). We have yet to consider how learning by the PLN can in turn influence the participating schools and consequently the larger context. The concepts of boundary crossing and brokerage set out in the next section are helpful in this respect.

1.6 Boundary crossing The expectation with learning networks is that once any new learning has been created and shared, it will influence the practice of the everyday communities of the network members in their respective schools, thus ensuring that the network accomplishes change at scale. When a PLN has come to an understanding about how routines should change, or about how new routines should be developed, we could say that a ‘boundary’ has formed between the PLN members and school staff who are not involved in the PLN (Hubers, accepted for publication). Colleagues at the participating schools who are outside the PLN have not learned about the problems and challenges yet, and may not agree with suggestions for improvement either. To promote the expansion of PLN learning to other colleagues in their schools, this boundary needs to be ‘crossed’ (also see Chapter 11). So-called ‘brokers’, who have a structural position in the network and are a unique link between

16  Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

the PLN and the participating schools, have the challenging role of establishing connections (Akkerman & Bruining, 2016). In other words, they are responsible for knowledge sharing between the PLN and colleagues in their wider school community. Brokers can make these connections by undertaking the activities of identification, coordination and reflection, and transformation. Identification concerns defining the way in which current practices in the participating school(s) and new practices suggested by the PLN differ.To do this, PLN members and other colleagues in their schools need to discuss such differences. Coordination and reflection takes this process one step further: PLN members and other colleagues first seek shared means and procedures for exchange and collaboration.This means, for example, that they focus communication on the organization and creation of new routines that are related to the new practices developed within the PLN. They also take up each other’s perspectives and examine current and proposed practices from those perspectives (Akkerman & Bruining, 2016). Transformation, meanwhile, is the process by which change in the organization(s) becomes visible in terms of changes in their existing practice. The various actors are confronted with questions or problems, recognize that these are shared, and develop new ideas to overcome these problems that are subsequently implemented. School improvement that is school-wide and ultimately system-wide can only be realized when PLNs ultimately lead to transformation(s) at the participating schools, which, in turn, also provides input to exchange with other schools and policymakers. Hubers (2016) suggests that boundary objects (such as toolkits or manuals) can be useful for sharing new knowledge in this process of identification, coordination and reflection, and transformation. Using boundary objects, however, is typically more effective when combined with face-to-face engagement (also see Chapter 11). The most effective content to share relates to the principles underlying new learning (Rogers, 2003). In other words, when network members share their learning, rather than just present an overview of what has been learned, they should also help others within their everyday community of practice understand how to take up and embed this learning themselves. The most effective learning networks, therefore, are those that share information from the network by embedding it back into their everyday communities through the use of face-to-face communication and boundary objects, in ways that help others within their community engage with and understand how to employ this new knowledge.

1.7 Conclusion The effects of different types of networks are often reported as small or mixed (Chapman & Muijs, 2014; Lomos et al., 2011; Muijs et al., 2011). As such, it is clear that a variety of factors need to be in place before networks can be successful. In Figure 1.1 we extend the model presented in the introduction by including a number of the elements described above. As before each dotted boundary line represents an everyday community of practice, with black dots representing members of that community and white stars representing individuals who are both

The importance of PLNs  17

Required for boundary crossing between PLN and community of practice: · Identification · Coordination and reflection · Transformation

Community of practice e.g. academic researchers

Community of practice e.g. school teachers

Relationship between PLNs and school and school system improvement Supporting conditions for PLNs: · Focus · Collaboration · Reflective professional inquiry · Leadership · Group and individual learning

Community of practice e.g. school teachers

Relationship between policy context and PLNs

FIGURE 1.1 

Theory of action for how networks work.

members of the community and members of the PLN. The group of black dots in the center of the diagram represents the PLN itself. Now included on the right of the diagram are the supporting conditions required if the PLN is to operate effectively and generate professional learning that has the potential to result in positive impact on student outcomes (i.e. focus, collaboration, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and group and individual learning). Also now included are the aspects of boundary crossing required if the learning and activity undertaken within the PLN is to influence the practice of the schools and communities of practice to which network members belong. In other words, what is required for PLNs to achieve impact at scale? These aspects of boundary crossing are identification, coordination and reflection, and transformation. Finally, there are the conditions that determine the relationship between the schools, the policy environment and PLNs. As noted above, schools may desire, and policy directives may advocate, the use of PLNs for school improvement, but mismatches can occur. In particular between what may be concluded by PLN members is needed to foster positive changes to teaching and learning, and current norms and established practices. Likewise, the types of learning activity required if PLNs are to be effective may clash with the here and now requirement to improve student outcomes. At the same time, exploring these factors is only a first step, and the focus of this book is to provide a much richer understanding of PLNs to enable their effective development and use. To achieve this, our approach is to expand the nature of current analysis and work in this area. While extant research often focuses on either the characteristics or impact of learning networks (Chapman & Muijs, 2014; Lomos et al., 2011), the case study chapters in this book aim to provide a picture of both. For a range of specific types of Professional Learning Networks, such as Teacher Design Teams, data teams and Lesson Study teams, we attempt to show the goals, processes, influencing factors, outcomes and challenges to coherence that exist. Examining PLNs in this way, and the conclusions it enables us to reach, comes with a potentially huge prize: Professional Learning Networks potentially

18  Cindy L. Poortman and Chris Brown

enable the bringing together of a wider range of resources and expertise than that which can be achieved within a single school. They provide the opportunity for both self-reflection and collective reflection on practice and increased engagement with more challenging and interactive forms of professional learning than is available within individual schools (Lieberman, 2000). Realizing the benefits of PLNs is not an easy task, because school improvement is a complex matter that requires consideration from a holistic perspective. A PLN way of working also requires a rethinking of roles and responsibilities within education systems (Chapman, 2014). At the same time, the current policy direction for school collaboration directed at ‘self-improvement’ is clear. As such, PLNs in which the supporting conditions are fulfilled, spanning from within-PLN learning to between-school learning, can be the way forward to achieve such ambitious goals.

References Akkerman, S., and Bruining, T. (2016). Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240–284. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., and Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. Chapman, C. (2014). From within- to between- and beyond-school improvement: A case of rethinking roles and relationships? State of Art Session: Educational Effectiveness and Improvement Research, Policy and Practice. ICSEI Conference, January 2–7, Yogyakarta. Retrieved from www.icsei.net/index.php?id=1677. Chapman, C., and Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 351–393. Desimone, L., Smith, T., and Phillips, K. (2013). Linking student achievement growth to professional development participation and changes in instruction: A longitudinal study of elementary students and teachers in Title I schools. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–46. Earl, L., and Timperley, H. (Eds.). (2008). Evidence-based conversations to improve educational practices. Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer Academic Publishers. Earl, L., Katz, S., Elgie, S., Ben Jaafar, S., and Foster, L. (2006). How networked communities work. Final report of the three year External Evaluation of the Networked Learning Communities Programme. Nottingham, UK: National College of School Leadership. Ellström, P. E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 421–435. Finnigan, K., Daly, A., Hylton, N., and Che, J. (2015). Leveraging social networks for educational improvement. In C. Brown (Ed.), Leading the use of research and evidence in schools (pp. 137–145). London: UCL IOE Press. Godfrey, D. (2017). Exploring cultures of research engagement at eight English secondary schools (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London. Hall, R., and Seidel Horn, I. (2012). Talk and conceptual change at work: Adequate representation and epistemic stance in a comparative analysis of statistical consulting and teacher workgroups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 240–258. Hargreaves, A. P., and Shirley, D. L. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hubers, M. D. (2016). Capacity building by data team members to sustain schools’ data use. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: Gildeprint.

The importance of PLNs  19

Hubers, M. D., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., and Pieters, J. M. (accepted for publication). Spreading the word: Boundary crossers building collective capacity for data use. Huffman, J., and Jacobson, A. (2003). Perceptions of professional learning communities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(3), 239– 250. Illeris, K. (2003). Workplace learning and learning theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 167–178. Katz, S., and Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 27–51. Kools, M., and Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? (OECD) Education Working Paper No. 137. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/ officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2016)11anddocLangu age=En. Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221–227. Little, J.W. (2005). Nodes and nets: Investigating resources for professional learning in schools and networks (unpublished paper for NCSL). Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., and Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148. Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., and West, M. (2011). Collaboration and networking in education. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. Pellegrino J,W., and Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills. Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Poortman, C. L. (2007). Workplace learning processes in senior secondary vocational education. Netherlands: University of Twente. Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York: Free Press. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., and Handelzalts, A. (2016). Data teams for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 228–254. Schleicher, A. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Stringfield, S., and Sellers, G. (2016). Institutionalized and other networking as the major changes in U.S. education over the last decade. ICSEI symposium proposal abstract. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., and Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. Van Lare, M. D., and Brazer, S. D. (2013). Analyzing learning in professional learning communities: A conceptual framework. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(4), 374–396. vanVeen,K.,Zwart,R.,Meirink,J.,andVerloop,N.(2010).Professionele ontwikkeling van leraren:Een reviewstudie naar effectieve kenmerken van professionaliseringsinterventies van leraren [Professional development of teachers: A review study into effective interventions in the professional development of teachers]. Leiden,The Netherlands: ICLON/ Expertisecentrum Leren van Docenten. Retrieved from www.nro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PROO+Professio nele+ontwikkeling+van+leraren+Klaas+van+Veen+ea.pdf Vescio,V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., and De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2 BALANCING TOP-DOWN AND SHARED LEADERSHIP A case study of a Teacher Design Team in transition to a new approach Floor Binkhorst

2.1 Introduction Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) are networks in which secondary school teachers from various schools collaborate to (re)design innovative educational materials. TDTs can contribute to teachers’ professional growth and to the successful implementation of educational reforms. This chapter describes a case study of a TDT made up of chemistry teachers, which was monitored for two consecutive years. The chapter starts with a brief introduction to the concept of TDTs and some background information about this specific case (Section 2.2).Then in Section 2.3, the TDT’s operations in the 2014–2015 school year are described, with a focus on: the participants and structure, the steps in the process, the team goal, the activities performed, the leadership style and the perceived outcomes of the TDT. Next, Section 2.4 explains why the TDT needed to make a transition to a new approach and how this approach was determined. This is followed by a description of the TDT’s operations in the 2015–2016 school year, when it used the new approach (Section 2.5). After noting the similarities and differences between the two consecutive years in Section 2.6, the chapter concludes by discussing how the new approach helped the team to find the right balance between top-down and shared leadership and how this supported the TDT’s outcomes (2.7).

2.2 What are Teacher Design Teams? Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) are Professional Learning Networks in which teachers collaborate to (re)design innovative educational materials. As a result of this collaboration, teachers can gain new knowledge and skills and use them to improve their teaching practice. In this way, TDTs can contribute to teachers’ professional development (Bakah et al., 2012a; Huizinga et al., 2014;Voogt et al., 2011).

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  21

In addition, teachers who participate in TDTs are not only exposed to new teaching practices, but also actively shape their own teaching practice as they design and implement new educational materials (Voogt et al., 2011). Designing educational materials is increasingly considered to be a core aspect of teachers’ work (Carlgren, 1999).This is particularly important during periods of educational reform.Teachers are expected to put the reform ideas into practice, and so the success of educational reforms largely depends on what teachers do and think (Fullan, 2007). Being engaged in designing reform-related educational materials in TDTs can create a sense of ownership of these reforms, which increases the likelihood of teachers actually adapting their teaching practice accordingly (Visser et al., 2012; Wikeley et al., 2005). In this way, TDTs can also contribute to sustainable implementation of educational reforms (Handelzalts, 2009; Johnson et al., 2014; Mooney Simmie, 2007).

2.2.1 Main objectives for TDTs TDTs have two main objectives, which can both be evaluated as outcome measures. The first objective for TDTs is teachers’ professional development. Teachers who participate in a TDT can gain new knowledge and skills, such as pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, design skills or professional skills such as networking (Bakah et al., 2012a; Huizinga et al., 2014;Voogt et al., 2011). Professional development can be described using a set of four evaluation levels (Kirkpatrick, 1996). The first evaluation level is the teachers’ reaction to the TDT. Did participants feel that the TDT was a valuable experience? The second level concerns teachers’ learning. Did the teachers gain new knowledge and skills? Next, the third level concerns the actual use of this new knowledge and skills. To what extent did teachers improve their teaching practice by applying the new insights? The final evaluation level is about the overall results from the TDT. Did the teachers’ students or their school benefit from the improvements in teaching practice? The second main objective for TDTs is designing educational materials. What type of material the participants develop depends on the focus of the TDT. For example, they can choose to design a lesson series about an innovative topic, or they can design several smaller educational materials, such as digital quizzes, practical assignments or experiments (Binkhorst et al., 2015). Similar evaluation levels can be used to assess the materials that are designed. The first evaluation level concerns the quality of the materials. Does the quality of the end product(s) meet the initial expectations? The second evaluation level is the actual use of these materials in practice. Are the participants using or planning to use the materials for a longer period of time in their classroom? The final evaluation level again concerns the results. Have the teachers’ students and their school benefited from use of the designed materials? Ownership plays a mediating role in achieving these two main objectives. Ownership is likely to develop in TDTs, because when teachers design educational materials, these materials are adapted to the teachers’ own practice (Bakah et al., 2012b;Visser et al., 2012).This increases the likelihood that teachers will implement

22  Floor Binkhorst

the materials in practice (Wikeley et al., 2005). To help explain why some participants use the knowledge and skills they have gained and employ the designed materials, while others do not, we explicitly take ownership into account when assessing the outcomes of TDTs.

2.2.2 Influencing factors TDTs are self-regulating teams in which participants have the autonomy to give directions and make decisions (Handelzalts, 2009). Therefore, shared leadership behavior is expected from team members, which means that participants guide or inspire each other, or take the lead in planning activities (Pearce, 2004). Taking the lead in articulating goals and planning activities during the design process can ensure that these goals and activities are relevant for the participants’ own practice (Binkhorst et al., 2017a). In this way, shared leadership behavior can result in conditions that are fruitful for teachers’ professional learning (Admiraal et al., 2015). At the same time, various studies have also emphasized the importance of topdown support from a team coach. Team coaches are expected to organize the TDT meetings, to provide basic support for their design process and to bring in expert knowledge about pedagogy (Becuwe et al., 2016; Huizinga et al., 2013; McKenney et al., 2016). This can lead to clarity and focus during the design process, which can boost the designed educational materials to a higher level (Binkhorst et al., 2017a).

2.2.3 Background of the TDT case TDTs exist in many different forms, but they always consist of teachers who collaborate to (re)design educational materials on a certain theme. This chapter describes a case study of a TDT that was organized by the University of Twente in the Netherlands. This TDT consisted of chemistry teachers from various secondary schools in our region, who voluntarily chose to participate in the TDT. The TDT was supported by a team coach, who was a chemistry teacher educator associated with our university’s school of education. The team coach was responsible for recruiting participants, chairing the meetings and providing expert knowledge about pedagogy and the design of educational materials. The TDT had monthly three-hour meetings at the university. The formal time investment for teachers who participated in the TDT was 60 hours per year, of which about 30 hours were expected to be spent in meetings, and the other 30 hours were expected to happen during teachers’ own time. Each particular TDT group worked together for one academic year at a time, but participants could choose to participate for several years. This chapter describes the chronological story of the chemistry TDT over two consecutive years. These two years were particularly important for chemistry teachers, as these were the first two years that their students took final exams in a revised examination program.

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  23

2.3 Description of the TDT in the 2014–2015 school year 2.3.1 Participants and structure Nine chemistry teachers from various secondary schools in the region participated in the chemistry TDT in the 2014–2015 school year. Here I refer to them using pseudonyms: Alice, Fred, Matt, Mary, Jane, Michael, Pete, John and Paula. They all volunteered to participate in the TDT, with approval from their schools. The TDT had monthly meetings that took place at the university, except for the second meeting, which took place at Alice’s school. In the first meeting, Alice, Fred, Matt and the team coach were selected as interview respondents, on a voluntary basis. They were interviewed twice: at the start of the year and at the end of the year. Furthermore, I always observed the meetings as a researcher. After each meeting, both the team coach and I completed a logbook entry about the meeting.

2.3.2 Process steps This section describes the steps the TDT followed during the meetings. However, although the TDT had a clear structure that included monthly three-hour meetings at the university, the team coach did not receive specific instructions on how to lead the TDT meetings and there was no fixed procedure regarding the steps of the TDT process. The coach was expected to use his own expertise as a teacher educator to guide the participants. One process step that did occur for every meeting was that the team coach sent an invitation by e-mail, including an agenda for the meeting. However, this agenda was not fixed; if participants came up with other topics during the meeting, these were added to the agenda. The participants in the TDT could choose the goals for the 2014–2015 school year themselves. However, they did not explicitly take time to discuss and articulate a team goal in the first meetings of the year. Furthermore, there was no fixed point during the meetings when the team could make plans for what to do before and during the next meeting. Some participants started working on design-related activities, but not everyone did. There was no collaborative procedure to divide tasks and to record their plans. However, after each meeting, the team coach provided minutes that included a summary of the meeting and a brief description of tasks that had been mentioned. The team interaction was very informal and sociable. The participants communicated openly, and they all indicated that they felt comfortable sharing their ideas and experiences.

2.3.3 Team goal In the interviews at the start of the year, the participants mentioned some of their personal goals for participating in the TDT. They all explained that they wanted to learn more about the new examination program. Furthermore, they all wanted to

24  Floor Binkhorst

design educational materials, but they were not sure what kind of materials these would be, as a team goal had not been explicitly stated. In the interviews at the end of the year, participants each mentioned that they had worked towards various sub-goals, for example: redesigning a digital lesson series, exploring the use of computer simulations for chemical experiments, and creating digital quizzes. Most of these sub-goals were initiated by the participants. The general theme could be summarized as: “digital tools in chemistry education.” The interviewed participants stated that this general theme was relevant for all of them. Matt explained: “It was clear that we were all searching for tools. For example, carrying out chemical experiments on the computer, without having to go to the lab. We searched for all kinds of possibilities.” However, the participants stated they did not have one shared goal. Fred and Matt both indicated that the team would have benefited if there had been greater focus.

2.3.4 Activities performed To find out what actually happened in the TDT, a list was made of the main activities within the meetings. Furthermore, a list of the activities that took place prior to the TDT meetings during the teachers’ own time was added. This is shown in Table 2.1. Within the meetings, the team mostly carried out knowledge-related activities, such as discussing and sharing experiences. In six of the meetings, external experts visited the TDT, to tell them about a digital chemistry simulation tool and a corresponding Inquiry Learning Space (ILS). In the interview at the end of the year, Alice explained that she thought they spent too much time on the simulation: “Together with the experts from this chemistry simulation tool we created an Inquiry Learning Space, to teach students about precipitation reactions. We spent much time on that. [ … ] For me, it was too much time. I felt only indirectly involved.” Fred and Matt explained that the simulation tool was not yet ready to actually use in the classroom, which made it less useful than they had hoped. Furthermore, as Table 2.1 indicates, various activities came up spontaneously. For example, in meeting 4, the TDT spent time on discussing the role of language in chemistry education, and in meeting 6 they spontaneously discussed an assignment from their textbook that was unclear to them. Although the participants were expected to spend 30 hours of their own time on the TDT over the course of one year, not all of them did TDT activities outside of the TDT meetings. Only Alice and Jane were very active with designing and testing materials on their own time. Furthermore, Pete and Fred designed some digital quizzes on their own time.

2.3.5 Leadership style Both the team coaches and the participants mentioned many examples of shared leadership behaviors during the TDT. For example, the team coach explained:

TABLE 2.1  Activities that took place prior to the TDT meetings

# Activities prior to the meetings

Activities during meeting

1 Inviting external experts on chemistry Getting acquainted. simulations (team coach). Presentation from external experts about chemistry simulations. Studying various digital lesson series and picking one to redesign. 2 Studying pilot exams (done by Tour of Science lab in Alice’s school. 4 participants). Discussing pilot exam. Discussing digital lesson series that will be redesigned. 3 Starting to redesign a digital lesson series (Alice).

Presentation from external experts about chemistry simulations. Studying digital lesson series that Alice had worked on. Spontaneous discussion about new examination program.

4 Sending redesigned digital lesson series Presentation from external expert about creating Inquiry Learning Spaces (ILS) for to other participants (Alice). the chemistry simulations. Looking at Alice’s redesigned digital Spontaneous discussion about the role of lesson series (Jane). language in new examination program. Discussing Alice’s redesigned digital lesson series. 5 Practicing with designing an ILS (Jane). Sharing experiences with designing an ILS Implementing the redesigned digital with fellow participants and external lesson series in practice (Alice). experts (Jane). Sharing experiences with implementing the redesigned digital lesson series (Alice). Spontaneous discussion about test assignments. Discussing the use of chemistry simulations 6 Practicing with designing an ILS and using ILSs with external experts. (Jane, Matt). Sharing experiences with implementing the Continuing implementing the redesigned digital lesson series (Alice). redesigned digital lesson series in practice (Alice, team coach attended Spontaneous discussion about an unclear assignment in the chemistry textbook. a lesson). 7 Designing a digital quiz to practice for Designing an ILS together with external experts. national examination (Pete). Sharing test results from redesigned digital lesson series (Alice). Working through and discussing Pete’s quiz. 8 E-mailing a video about digital tools in Viewing and discussing Fred’s video about digital tools in the classroom. the classroom (Fred). Working through and discussing Fred’s quiz. Watching Fred’s video (done by a Discussing how to prepare students for new few participants). examination program. Designing a digital quiz (Fred). 9 None

Reflecting on national examinations.

26  Floor Binkhorst

“They came up with many ideas for activities. For example, they initiated all those quizzes themselves. […] The participants brought in many things.” The participants appreciated the fact that they could bring in their ideas. Alice observed:“Many ideas came from the group, which makes you feel more ownership. This makes it much easier.” However, the participants also noted that the TDT would have benefited from more top-down, vertical leadership. Although the participants acknowledged some top-down leadership, as the coach played an important role in organizing the meetings and bringing in his expert knowledge, they also stated that the coach could have created more clarity and structure during the process. As Fred described: “The ideas from the group weren’t integrated very well. There should have been more structure. […] The coach could have decided: either we do it this way, or we don’t do it at all.”

2.3.6 Perceived outcomes In the final interviews, all participants indicated some professional growth. They were all fairly satisfied with the TDT and they mentioned examples of how they gained new knowledge and skills. They mainly gained new pedagogical insights, by sharing knowledge and experiences from their teaching practice with each other. They also gained new insights about the usefulness of several digital tools for education. Alice explained that she used these insights to improve her teaching practice and thereby her students’ learning. However, Fred and Matt were both unsure whether the new knowledge and skills actually led to improved teaching. Matt opined: “Maybe unconsciously. […] But I did not change my whole way of teaching.” Consequently, these participants were unsure whether their schools did benefit from their TDT participation. The same pattern was evident with regard to the designed materials. Alice was very happy with the digital lesson series that she redesigned herself. She explained that she received valuable feedback from the other team members, which improved the quality of her lesson series. She was determined to use this digital lesson series (again) in the future and the other chemistry teachers at her school wanted to use it as well. On the other hand, Fred and Matt were less satisfied with the designed materials. They indicated that they did not have a clear team goal, and it was not clear what they were working towards. All participants felt ownership of the TDT to some extent. However, Alice again felt more ownership than the other two teachers who were interviewed. She explained that she felt accountable for the outcomes and that she identified herself with the TDT: “Yes, in the end, the success of the TDT feels like my own success. And also the other way around, if things go wrong, you know you can learn from it.” Fred and Matt both felt less accountable for the outcomes of the TDT and they were both unsure about their own contribution to the TDT. Fred explained: “I didn’t really know how I could contribute to the part about chemistry simulations. When I tried to work with it, I encountered many technical problems, so I couldn’t move ahead to the pedagogy.”

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  27

2.4 Transition to a new approach Several noteworthy observations emerged when analyzing the leadership style, the processes and the outcomes of the chemistry TDT in the 2014–2015 school year. The TDT did not have a structured procedure for making their plans and defining their goals. The participants mentioned many examples of shared leadership, as they could lead the discussions and initiate activities. For Alice, this was a very good approach. As indicated in Table 2.1, she initiated many activities and she redesigned a complete digital lesson series by herself. Compared to the other participants who were interviewed, Alice felt most ownership, and she was most satisfied with the outcomes of the TDT in terms of professional development and the designed materials. However, both Fred and Matt indicated that the outcomes of the TDT would have been better if there had been a clearer procedure and clearer goals. They did not get started on activities as easily as Alice did, and they explained that more top-down leadership from the team coach would have helped to provide direction. However, they also explained that shared leadership was essential to stimulate the sense of ownership. Similar results were seen in other TDTs that were monitored in the 2014–2015 school year. These TDTs all needed to find a better balance between shared leadership and top-down support from the team coach. For this reason, a stepwise method to support team coaches with leading TDTs was developed (Binkhorst et al., 2017b). This method was inspired by agile product development (Highsmith, 2010). TDTs that follow this method work in small, achievable iterations, which stimulates participants to bring in their ideas, articulate their plans and be creative. Furthermore, the steps in the method are clearly defined and explicitly incorporate time for developing goals and for developing a plan on a planning board.Therefore, the expectation was that this stepwise method could prevent unstructured meetings and unclear team goals. In the 2015–2016 school year, the chemistry TDT used this stepwise method. The next section describes the design process and the outcomes of the TDT, following this transition.

2.5 Description of the TDT in the 2015–2016 school year 2.5.1 Participants and structure In the 2015–2016 school year, five chemistry teachers participated in the TDT. Three of them had also participated in the previous year: Alice, Mary and John. Furthermore, two new teachers joined the chemistry TDT: Grace and Bob. The team was supported by the same team coach as in the previous year. My role as a researcher changed slightly. To ensure the stepwise method was implemented as intended, I functioned as a technical chair, pointing out the steps of the method. Furthermore, the structure was similar to the previous year. All teachers volunteered to participate, with the approval of their schools, and all meetings took place at the university every month.

28  Floor Binkhorst

All participants and the team coach were interviewed at the start and at the end of the year. Furthermore, after each meeting, both the team coach and I completed a logbook entry about the meeting.

2.5.2 Process steps A model of the stepwise method used to prescribe the steps of the chemistry TDT design process in the 2015–2016 school year is depicted in Figure 2.1. An explanation of the process is as follows: A Brainstorming about the team goal The first meeting starts with step A, which concerns brainstorming about the shared team goal(s). In contrast to the previous year, in the first meeting of this year, the TDT explicitly discussed the team goals. All participants provided input. In every subsequent meeting, these goals were explicitly addressed again. In most meetings the participants agreed that the team goals were still relevant, but in the fifth meeting they added a new goal.

(D) Articulating list of tasks (C) Brainstorming about the tasks (E) Brainstorming about short-term plan

(A) Brainstorming about the team goal

(B) Articulating the (refined) team goal

(H) Carrying out collaborative tasks

FIGURE 2.1 

(G) Carring out individual tasks

A model of the stepwise method.

(F) Articulating the short-team plan End of meeting

Start of meeting

(I) Finishing term and reflection

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  29

B Articulating the (refined) team goal When the TDT participants agreed on the team goals, I wrote them down on sticky notes, which were placed on the planning board that was visible to all participants. C Brainstorming about the tasks The aim of this step was to brainstorm about the tasks that need to be done to complete the goals. These could be either individual tasks outside the meetings, or collaborative tasks within the meetings. However, in most meetings, the participants came up with various ideas for tasks during step H (see below), while doing collaborative activities. D Articulating list of tasks When participants mentioned tasks, I wrote them down on sticky notes. As most tasks had already been mentioned in step H rather than in step C, I repeated them in this step, in order to get confirmation from the participants. E Brainstorming about the short-term plan In this step, the participants made explicit short-term plans for the time period from step F until step I, which is referred to as a “term.” They brainstormed about a sub-goal for the next term, and chose which tasks should be performed and by whom. F Articulating the short-term plan After brainstorming about the plan, it was written up on the planning board. I wrote down the sub-goal for the next term that the participants had decided on, and displayed it on the planning board, along with the selected tasks. I always briefly summarized the plan, after which the meeting ended. Furthermore, I took a picture of the planning board and e-mailed it to the participants, so that participants were aware of the tasks they had agreed to perform prior to the next meeting. G Carrying out individual tasks Between the meetings, the participants had time to carry out the individual tasks they had agreed to. H Carrying out collaborative tasks Each subsequent meeting started with step H. The participants began with doing the collaborative activities that had been decided upon in the previous meeting.This step took the most time every meeting: between 2 and 2.5 hours. While doing collaborative activities, the participants came up with many ideas for new activities for the next term. I Finishing term and reflection Step I was set out to finish the term and to reflect on the short-term plan. As step H took most of the meeting time, often there was not much time left for this reflection step. When the TDT did take time for reflection, they mostly concluded that the process was going well. On one occasion only, they explicitly expressed their concerns that too much time was spent on discussion. As a result, they decided to use more active working methods the next term.

30  Floor Binkhorst

After the reflection step, the term ended and the TDT went back to step A to start a new iteration. By using this method, the team explicitly discussed the goals and tasks every meeting and the assignment of tasks was recorded on the planning board. Similar to the previous year, the team interaction was very informal. The participants felt comfortable being open, sharing their ideas and asking for feedback.

2.5.3 Team goal In the first meeting, the TDT formulated two main team goals: designing practical exercises about the theme of green chemistry and getting familiarized with the new examination program. In the fifth meeting, they added a third goal: gaining insights into the role of language skills in chemistry education (see below). In the final interviews, the participants all stated that these goals were shared and they all felt that these goals were relevant for their own teaching practice. Furthermore, they explained that the goals were clear. Bob explained that this made the TDT more efficient than other professional development programs that he had attended: “If I go to a conference or a workshop, I always think, what is the rate of return? Mostly that’s low, because there are no clearly defined goals. Here in the TDT, the goals were very clear.”

2.5.4 Activities performed A summary of the main activities within and outside of the meetings is shown in Table 2.2. At every meeting, the team carried out two main activities, which were in line with their goals: discussing pilot exam questions or test questions and discussing or designing the practical exercises about green chemistry. The participants indicated that these activities were very useful. Bob explained: “You learn from each other, when you hear them talking about how they look at these questions or exercises. How do they look at chemistry education? How do they look at these texts?” Furthermore, on two occasions, external experts visited the TDT, once to discuss green chemistry and a second time to explore the role of language. Alice explained why these presentations were useful: “That kind of knowledge is of great importance, because you can directly use it in your classroom. Or use it to adjust the practical exercise.” In meeting five, the TDT had a spontaneous discussion about the role of language in chemistry education. In response to this discussion, the participants added a new team goal: gaining insights into the role of language in chemistry education. In the following meetings, the role of language became an important theme in all discussions. All participants carried out activities outside of the TDT meetings.These activities varied from searching for relevant contexts for the practical exercise to implementing the designed material in the classroom.The team coach explained why it is important

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  31 TABLE 2.2  A summary of the main activities within and outside of the meetings

#

Activities prior to the meetings

Activities during meeting

1

None.

2

Studying existing module on green chemistry (done by all). Studying first question of pilot exam (all). Inviting external expert (team coach).

Getting acquainted. Initial brainstorming about team goals and possible activities. Presentation from external expert about green chemistry. Discussing existing module on green chemistry. Discussing first question of pilot exam.

3

Studying second question of pilot exam (all). Searching for relevant contexts (popular scientific articles) for the practical exercise (all).

Discussing second question of pilot exam. Brainstorming about a context for the practical exercise.

4

Studying third question of pilot exam (all). Sending some additional contexts (team coach and Bob). Considering whether these contexts are applicable for practical exercise (all).

Discussing third question of pilot exam. Discussing the various contexts of green chemistry. Working in groups of two: designing a first draft for a practical exercise.

5

Studying fourth question of pilot exam (all). Discussing fourth question of pilot exam. Working out practical exercise, practical Discussing the two versions of the variant (Bob). practical exercise. Working out practical exercise, theoretical Spontaneous discussion about the role variant (Alice and Grace). of language in chemistry education. Searching for additional contexts (Mary).

6

Sending a test about green chemistry, made Presentations from two external experts about the role of language. by a colleague (Mary). Discussing the role of language in Studying Mary’s test (all). national exams. Working out practical exercise, practical Briefly discussing the role of language in variant (Bob). Mary’s test. Inviting external experts on the role of language (team coach and Alice).

7

Implementing practical exercises on green Discussing the role of language in Mary’s test. chemistry in the classroom (Bob). Implementing slightly adjusted module on Discussing Bob’s and Alice’s experiences from the classroom. green chemistry in the classroom (Alice).

8

Discussing Mary’s test about green chemistry with students (Grace). Adjusting Mary’s test about green chemistry (Alice). Sending existing roadmap for reading and answering strategies (Alice). Studying this roadmap (all).

Discussing and adjusting roadmap for reading and answering strategies Discussing Bob’s experiences from the classroom. Discussing Alice’s adjusted version of Mary’s test.

32  Floor Binkhorst TABLE 2.2  Continued

#

Activities prior to the meetings

Activities during meeting

9

Sending a sample test exam (team coach). Studying sample test exam (all). Finishing practical exercises (Bob).

Discussing the role of language in the sample test exam. Discussing Bob’s experiences from the classroom. Spontaneous discussion about different ways to teach.

10 None.

Reflecting on national examinations and the results of the TDT.

that participants do activities outside the TDT: “It’s a good sign that everyone does their tasks at home. Then in the meetings, they bring in things that they thought about, what they made or what they did. That is important for moving forward.”

2.5.5 Leadership style The participants and the team coach mentioned many examples of shared leadership behavior during the TDT in the 2015–2016 school year. For example, Mary described:“Taking initiatives came very naturally. Nobody obliged you to do things, the initiative came from the participants.” They all perceived this as positive. John explained: “Participants could bring in their ideas for the goal and decide about the directions. […] Without doubt this is a good thing.” The participants also mentioned various examples of top-down leadership behavior. For example, the team coach organized the meetings, he shared his own expertise and he invited external experts. Furthermore, they explained that by following the stepwise method, and by having a technical chair who ensured the steps were followed as intended, they always knew what to do next. Grace explained: “Because we had a technical chair, who always pointed out: these are the goals, the last time we did this, these are the plans for the next time … Well, then you can go on. The structure was very clear.”

2.5.6 Perceived outcomes In the final interviews, the participants indicated various examples of their professional growth. They explained that they had updated their knowledge about green chemistry and that they had gotten new ideas on how to teach it in an attractive way. Furthermore, they learned how they could better teach students to read and to respond to test items correctly and they gained insights into the role of language in chemistry education. They also indicated how they improved their teaching practice with their new knowledge and skills. For example, Mary explained: “I think it broadens my views, and I can transfer that to my students. Education is very dynamic, so my students can benefit from things that I learn in the TDT.” Grace explained that gaining knowledge and skills created added value for her school: “The graduation rate in our school is quite low, so our school wants to try anything

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  33

to boost it. Every little bit helps, so if my students perform even a little bit better in chemistry, my school can benefit.” Regarding the designed materials, in the interviews at the start of the year, the participants stated that they aimed to design practical exercises about green chemistry. In the final interviews, all participants and the team coach explained that this goal was met. They designed two versions of practical exercises about green chemistry: a theoretical version in which students use popular scientific articles to discover the main principles of green chemistry, and a practical version, in which students make biofuels themselves. Bob was the only participant who tested both versions in the classroom during the TDT. However, almost all other participants mentioned clear plans to use them next year. Grace explained: “I didn’t test them yet, but next year I want to implement both versions. Then our school will have moved to a new building, with much more possibilities for practical experiments.” Besides these practical exercises, the TDT designed various smaller materials, such as test items and a roadmap for reading and answering strategies. Alice explained that her school could benefit, as her colleagues could use the materials: “The materials get a place in our school, so anybody, mainly the science teachers, can use them.” Although the practical exercises were only relevant for other chemistry teachers, some of the other materials such as the roadmap for reading and answering strategies were more widely applicable than just chemistry education and could be used by all teachers. All participants indicated that they felt ownership of the TDT to some extent. They all felt that they could add something. Almost all participants felt accountable for the outcomes of the TDT. Only John explained that he felt the TDT was too informal for him to feel accountable.

2.6 Similarities and differences To determine whether the stepwise method influenced the outcomes of the chemistry TDT, the first year cannot simply be considered as a baseline and the second year as an effect study, because the group composition and the group size were different, and the goals of the TDT were different. However, as three participants (Alice, Mary and John), the team coach, and I attended the chemistry TDT for both of those years, some comparisons could be made of the process and the outcomes in those two years. The main similarity of the two consecutive years was that the team atmosphere was very informal. The participants indicated that they felt free to be open, share their ideas and provide each other with feedback. Furthermore, in both years, participants mentioned many examples of shared leadership. They explained that they had the opportunity to bring in goals for the TDT and to initiate activities if they wanted to. However, in the first year, not all participants used this opportunity.Table 2.1 shows that only Alice and Jane took the initiative to carry out various TDT activities outside the meetings. In contrast,Table 2.2 illustrates that in the year 2015–2016, all participants did TDT activities outside

34  Floor Binkhorst

the meetings. The participants who attended both years indicated that the stepwise method prompted them to take these actions. Another difference was that in the second year, there was much more clarity about the team goals and about the activities that needed to be carried out to achieve these goals. Alice explained how the planning board helped: “It was very clear what we did and what we should do next. It was much clearer than in previous years, when we only saw the plans in the minutes afterwards. Now with the planning board it really comes alive.” Furthermore, they indicated that they benefited from having two top-down leaders: the team coach who ensured the quality of the content, and the technical chair who indicated the steps. However, as having two leaders for one team would become too expensive in the long run, participants suggested that they could alternate in the role of technical chair in the future. The perceived outcomes also differed between the two years. Whereas in the 2014–2015 school year, only Alice was satisfied with both the professional development and the designed materials, in the 2015–2016 school year all participants were satisfied. Mary explained how the stepwise method encouraged her to take initiatives and led to an increased sense of ownership: “With this method, you could easily bring in things. […] Increasingly, the TDT mattered more and more to me. Maybe my input was still a bit less than the input from others, but I felt more engaged than previous years.” Alice also explained that although she did a lot of activities without the method, the fact that the tasks were written down and visible for everyone increased her feeling of responsibility to actually carry out the tasks. Furthermore, the team coach explained that in the 2014–2015 school year, much time was spent on the topic of chemistry simulation tools, without explicitly considering whether all participants agreed with that. He explained that in the later school year, it helped to explicitly articulate the goals and plans: “Making it explicit, what can we do with the things we discussed? I think that contributed to the fact that we were staying more on track this year. We didn’t move to all kinds of different topics.” An example that illustrates this can be found in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. In the 2014–2015 school year, on four occasions the TDT ended up in a spontaneous discussion. In the 2015–2016 school year this happened twice, in the fifth and the ninth meetings. However, the spontaneous discussion in the fifth meeting actually led to developing an additional goal for the TDT. This illustrates how the stepwise method can encourage making use of these spontaneous discussions.

2.7 Concluding remarks This chapter described the case of a chemistry  TDT that was monitored for two consecutive years. Between these years, the TDT made a transition to a new approach. In the first year that was monitored, the team coach did not follow specific instructions on how to lead the TDT. The participants indicated that they had opportunities to take the initiative, but not all participants used this opportunity. Therefore, not all participants felt engaged and they did not all feel ownership of the TDT. Furthermore, participants explained that more focused top-down support could have provided more clarity and structure. Although the participants did

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  35

report some professional growth and they did design some educational materials, not all participants were equally satisfied with the outcomes.These findings support literature that has indicated that a hybrid form of leadership with a blend of shared and top-down leadership is needed to promote positive outcomes (Gronn, 2009; Pearce, 2004). However, the results from this first year indicated the TDT did not automatically combine these shared and top-down leadership behaviors. In the second year, the TDT used a revised approach: a stepwise method that was inspired by agile product development.The participants explained that this method helped the team coach and technical chair to articulate the goals and to develop clear and feasible plans. This top-down support resulted in greater focus and more clarity regarding the activities. At the same time, the participants explained that the method helped them to take the lead themselves. While using the method, the team explicitly incorporated time to brainstorm about ideas from all participants and to write them down on the planning board. This resulted in goals and plans that were relevant for the teachers’ own practice. All participants explained that they were happy with the outcomes, as they gained new knowledge and skills and they designed educational materials that were used to improve their teaching practice. In this way, this chapter showed how the revised approach contributed to participants’ individual outcomes. But did their participation in the TDT also contribute to school improvement? In a way, teachers’ individual professional growth can always support school performance. For example, one of the participants explained that even if her students performed just a little bit better in chemistry due to her professional growth, the school’s overall graduation rate could benefit. Beyond that, the school’s outcomes depend on the focus of the TDT. In this case study, the TDT mainly focused on designing chemistry-related materials. Therefore, it was mainly the chemistry departments from the participants’ schools that could benefit. For example, teachers could share newly gained chemistry-related knowledge with colleagues or make the designed materials available for colleagues. At the same time, however, the TDT also designed other materials that were more widely applicable than just chemistry education, such as the roadmap for reading and answering strategies. As these materials were relevant for all subjects, sharing them in the schools could foster school improvement. In sum, this case study illustrated how a revised approach provided opportunities for balancing top-down and shared leadership in TDTs. Although the stepwise method was developed for TDTs, in which designing educational materials is a core aspect, insights from this study might also be useful in other types of Professional Learning Networks that are struggling with finding a balance between top-down and shared leadership. In this case, other Professional Learning Networks might consider using a similar stepwise method to promote clarity and focus in the team, without impeding participants’ initiative and creativity.

Acknowledgments This study is part of the project “A Theoretical and Practical Basis for Teacher Design Teams,” funded and supported by the Centre of Expertise TechYourFuture (the Netherlands).

36  Floor Binkhorst

References Admiraal, W., Kruiter, J., Lockhorst, D., Schenke, W., Sligte, H., Smit, B., et al. (2015). Affordances of teacher professional learning in secondary schools. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(3), 281–298. Bakah, M. A. B., Voogt, J. M., and Pieters, J. M. (2012a). Updating polytechnic teachers’ knowledge and skills through teacher design teams in Ghana. Professional Development in Education, 38(1), 7–24. Bakah, M. A. B., Voogt, J. M., and Pieters, J. M. (2012b). Advancing perspectives of sustainability and large-scale implementation of design teams in Ghana’s polytechnics: Issues and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(6), 787–796. Becuwe, H., Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., Thys, J., and Castelein, E. (2016). Teacher design teams as a strategy for professional development: The role of the facilitator. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3–4), 141–154. Binkhorst, F., Handelzalts,A., Poortman, C. L., and van Joolingen,W. R. (2015). Understanding teacher design teams: A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51(C), 213–224. Binkhorst, F., Poortman, C. L., and van Joolingen, W. R. (2017a). A qualitative analysis of Teacher Design Teams: In-depth insights into their process and links with their outcomes. Manuscript submitted for publication. Binkhorst, F., Poortman, C. L., McKenney, S., and van Joolingen, W. R. (2017b). Teacher Design Teams for professional development: Guidelines for coaches. Manuscript submitted for publication. Carlgren, I. (1999). Professionalism and teachers as designers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 43–56. Fullan, M. (2007). Change theory as a force for school improvement. In J. M. Burger, C. Webber, and P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent Leadership (pp. 27–39) Netherlands: Springer. Gronn, P. (2009). From distributed to hybrid leadership in practice. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership (Vol. 7). Netherlands: Springer. Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams. Netherlands: University of Twente. Highsmith, J. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products (2nd edn). Boston: Pearson Education. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., and Voogt, J. M. (2013). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., and Voogt, J. (2014). Fostering teachers’ design expertise in teacher design teams: Conducive design and support activities. Curriculum Journal, 26(1), 137–163. Johnson, R., Severance, S., Leary, H., and Miller, S. (2014). Mathematical tasks as boundary objects in design-based implementation research. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, et al. (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014,Volume 2 (pp. 1127–1131). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training and Development, 50(1), 54–59. McKenney, S., Boschman, F., Pieters, J., and Voogt, J. (2016). Collaborative design of technology-enhanced learning: What can we learn from teacher talk? TechTrends, 60, 385–391.

Balancing top-down and shared leadership  37

Mooney Simmie, G. (2007).Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) – building capacity for innovation, learning and curriculum implementation in the continuing professional development of in-career teachers. Irish Educational Studies, 26(2), 163–176. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57. Visser, T. C., Coenders, F. G. M., Terlouw, C., and Pieters, J. M. (2012). Design of a model for a professional development programme for a multidisciplinary science subject in the Netherlands. Professional Development in Education, 38(4), 679–682. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J. M., and de Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244. Wikeley, F., Stoll, L., Murillo, J., and De Jong, R. (2005). Evaluating effective school improvement: Case studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contribution to the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 387–405.

3 RESEARCH LEARNING NETWORKS A case study in using networks to increase knowledge mobilization at scale Chris Brown

3.1 Introduction Research Learning Networks (RLNs) were designed to enable the rollout of research-informed interventions at scale (Brown, 2015). This chapter begins by discussing how RLNs originated from the more general drive in England to increase research use in schools (Section 3.2). It then provides detail on the theoretical and conceptual thinking underpinning the RLN model (Section 3.3). Next, the chapter uses the case study of the ‘Excellence Together’ Teaching School Alliance to show how RLNs are run and delivered in practice (Section 3.4). The case of ‘Excellence Together … ’ is also used to illustrate how the RLN approach led to teachers within this specific network engaging in Research-Informed Teaching Practice (RITP). Examining the impact of such practice, the chapter then details how the RLN model has helped schools transform teaching and improve student outcomes (Section 3.5).The chapter concludes by setting out key learning not only for RLNs but also for Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) more generally (Section 3.6).

3.2 The origins of the Research Learning Network approach The notion that a wider adoption of research-informed teaching practice by teachers might enhance both outcomes for teachers themselves as well as their students, while also facilitating system level improvements, is currently fashionable in education (Cain, 2015; Hammersley-Fletcher & Lewin, 2015). This current interest in teacher and school research engagement is also seemingly justified; with a number of scholars now presenting tangible evidence to support the benefits of teachers and schools becoming research engaged (see for example Cordingley, 2013 or Mincu, 2014). Yet, while the discourse surrounding RITP is now almost overwhelmingly positive, there also exists a recognized failure, on an international scale, of research

Research Learning Networks: A case study  39

use to make any real and sustained impact on the practices of teachers (Bryk et al., 2011). In addition, and despite considerable activity, it is also acknowledged that there is currently a lack of system-wide processes to enable the effective engagement by teachers with research (Gough et al., 2011). As a result of this absence of a meaningful research to practice ‘infrastructure’, in 2014, England’s Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)1 opened a competition for funding for projects with a focus on increasing RITP in schools. Specifically, the EEF sought to fund pilot projects designed to increase current understanding in terms of how schools can be supported in applying existing research findings to improve outcomes and also to narrow the gap in pupil achievement. To address the EEF’s aims the author of this chapter, along with a team of colleagues from the UCL Institute of Education developed a proposal for a concept described here as Research Learning Networks (RLNs).The RLN approach was designed to harness the benefits of networks in two ways. First, it was intended that RLNs achieve impact at scale by working with representatives from a number of schools and then using these representatives to generate evidence-informed change amongst a much greater number of teachers and pupils within their schools. To this end, 14 RLNs were formed, comprising 110 staff from 55 schools. By working this way, it was hoped that a networked approach would ultimately lead to change amongst some 500-plus teachers and some 13,000 pupils overall. Second, membership of the network meant that RLN participants were able to engage with a wealth of perspectives and the experience of other teachers from a whole range of contexts. This, it was believed, would benefit practitioners as they engaged in processes of learning in relation to research knowledge. Also in terms of sharing practical experiences of trialing and embedding research-informed interventions within their schools (e.g. what worked/didn’t work and why?).

3.3 Theoretical and conceptual thinking that underpins the model In order to ensure the first aim of achieving meaningful within-school researchinformed change, three core ideas were employed in the development of RLNs. The first of these is the fundamental notion that educational practitioners do not become research informed simply by being presented with research evidence; instead two things should occur. To begin with teachers need to engage in a facilitated process of learning, designed to help them make explicit connections between research knowledge and their own assumptions and knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Katz & Dack, 2013). The aim of this process should be to help teachers create new understandings in relation to a given issue or problem (Katz & Dack, 2013). Following this period of learning, which should culminate in the development of new practices, strategies or innovations informed by research and directed at tackling specific issues of teaching and learning, teachers then need to practice using these innovations. As they do so in a variety of situations and contexts, teachers will subsequently develop expertise in their application, as they

40  Chris Brown

begin to understand how, where and why their use is likely to be most effective (Flyvbjerg, 2001). The second of the core ideas underpinning the RLN approach is that the successful rollout of new practices is dependent on effective change leadership. In other words, initiating innovation represents the introduction of something new and potentially counter cultural. As such, there is a risk that new practices are rejected by those required to adopt them. Correspondingly, the effective scale-up of research-informed interventions will be dependent on there being ‘the right people in the room’: those most likely to make change happen in schools (e.g., those with the influence and authority to lead change). This means these ‘right people’ must be identified and selected to take part in ‘connecting research and practice’ (CRP) activity: with their participation ensuring that the implementation of researchinformed practices is both prioritized and remains top of mind (Southworth, 2009). The third and related core idea, however, is that if evidence-informed practices are to spread widely, then those involved in the CRP activity, as well as having influence and authority, must also have the ability to deliver effective change on the ground. This means that they must explicitly know both what is required to lead change effectively and also their own role in making long-lasting change happen. I now explain these core ideas and their theoretical and conceptual grounding in more detail, before outlining how they were realized in practice and how RLNs operate in schools.

3.3.1 Core idea #1: Learning and practical application The first core idea is simply expressed: in order for RITP to become a meaningful way of working, practitioners need to engage with research via effective learning activities. The nature of such learning activities is encapsulated by the notion of knowledge ‘creation’ (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Brown, 2015). As a concept, knowledge creation spotlights the ways in which practically useful and contextually pertinent knowledge can result when the producers and users of both ‘practical’ and ‘formal’ knowledge come together to share what each group knows. To successfully create new knowledge, practitioners need to take part in facilitated ‘learning conversations’: conversations structured to help teachers make sense of various forms of evidence in order to drive real changes in student learning (Earl & Timperley, 2008: 2). Whereas learning conversations have traditionally been viewed as within-school activities, Research Learning Networks involve a network of participants from a number of schools coming together to learn. RLNs may be further distinguished however in that they maintain an explicit focus on learning from and building upon existing academic knowledge. Consequently, knowledge creation activity in RLNs focuses on learning conversations between teachers’ practitioner-based knowledge and academic knowledge. External knowledge/theory is thus brought to the fore and treated as an equal partner to practitioner knowledge. As well as engage meaningfully with research to develop innovations or new practices, however, practitioners also need to develop expertise in the use of these

Research Learning Networks: A case study  41

interventions. Such expertise stems from the application of these practices and, correspondingly, their ongoing trial and refinement. Of particular relevance is Flyvbjerg’s (2001) argument that individuals can only become true experts as a result of continuously engaging in ‘real life performances’. By this Flyvbjerg means that expertise derives from individuals’ increasing recognition of different situations and how best to employ new practices or innovations in response (i.e. in order to achieve their desired impact). Likewise Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) notion of knowledge creation suggests that internalizing new knowledge through repeated use ensures that it becomes tacit and thus is employed more effectively. The implications of both Flyvbjerg’s (2001) and Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) perspectives being that learning conversations in RLNs need to have included within them strong elements of practical application. In other words once new knowledge has been created it must be regularly used in order for it to have long-lasting beneficial impact on the way teachers engage in teaching and learning activity.

3.3.2 Core idea #2: Having the right people in the room The importance of school leadership for delivering change is described in Chapter 1. One implication of this however is that, for research use in schools to have any chance of becoming a reality, it must be something that school leaders actively believe in. Correspondingly, for RITP to materialize in practice, school leaders need to do two things. First, they should actively promote their vision for research use within their school, while simultaneously encouraging, facilitating and supporting their teachers to develop and adopt research-informed practices (Stoll and Fink, 1996). Second, and perhaps even more importantly, is that school leader involvement in RLN activity is also key.This is because having first hand involvement and experience in developing research-informed interventions also enables school leaders to ‘walk the talk’: to both demonstrate their commitment, as well as engage in instructional leadership practices such as ‘modeling’, ‘monitoring’ and ‘mentoring and coaching’ (dialogue). As a result, school leaders are able to not only showcase evidence-informed policymaking (EIP) but also actively support staff in the adoption of such practices, ensuring wider buy-in and take-up across the school (Southworth, 2009). At the same time, it is clear that leadership, when considered as a process of influence, can be undertaken by more than just those possessing ‘formal’ responsibility (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). Correspondingly, the notion of opinion formers was derived from the idea that, if we explore who it is that teachers turn to for workrelated expertise, and then identify which of these individuals is turned to most, we will have likely pinpointed the teacher most able to disseminate research-informed practice to others.What’s more, if this individual is also centrally positioned in other areas (e.g. in terms of a school’s trust or support networks) then they can potentially also galvanize other teachers to adopt research-informed teaching practices. As such, for the purposes of the RLN approach, opinion formers are defined as practitioners who are centrally placed in terms of advice seeking and support and who can act as conduits for both mobilizing opinion and the adoption of new practices.

42  Chris Brown

3.3.3 Core idea #3: Knowing what is required to deliver change Stoll et al. (2015) observes that school leaders can often be frustrated in their attempts to roll out new practices and innovations to colleagues. In part, this frustration derives from a lack of understanding or even confidence in relation to leading change. But it also stems from the notion that those within organizations instinctively oppose change initiatives that are likely to disrupt current ways of getting things done (Battilana & Casicaro, 2013). As Fullan argues, there is thus a need “to understand change in order to lead it better” (2001: 34). Stoll and Brown (2015) note that governments internationally have taken seriously this need for teachers and school leaders to understand change effectively and, as a result, frequently include change management in their leadership curricula. For example, leading improvement, innovation and change is one of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s key professional practices for school leaders. Change leadership is also one of five competence areas for Norwegian school principals. Likewise, in England the National College for Teaching and School Leadership includes leading change for improvement as an elective study module within its professional qualifications and development for middle and senior leaders. It is also suggested by Stoll and Brown (2015) that, as part of their work on an Economic and Social Research Council funded knowledge transfer project (Middle Leaders as Catalysts for Evidence-Informed Change), helping participants to understand and apply theories of change was fundamental to the success of these participants in being able to roll out innovations and new practices more widely. Correspondingly, core idea #3 is that as well as having the right people in the room, these people should possess the capacity (i.e. the knowledge, skills and confidence) to lead change.

3.4 How RLNs operate in schools: The Excellence Together Teaching School Alliance I now provide a case study of the RLN approach to illustrate these three core ideas in action, as well as how the RLN model enabled its participants to harness the benefits of networks, by helping them to benefit from the knowledge and experiences of others. The impact of the approach is then discussed in Section 3.5, both in terms of teacher and student outcomes. The concept of Teaching Schools was announced in 2010 by England’s Department for Education, and forms part of the current UK government’s stated policy of giving schools in England more freedom and increased responsibility for managing the education system. Teaching schools have a remit to form alliances (networks) with surrounding partner schools and to work with these alliances in order to improve teaching and learning in the round.What’s more teaching schools also have a role in engaging schools within their alliance in research and development activity; this role requires them to work with partner schools in order to both define and disseminate effective research-informed practice.

Research Learning Networks: A case study  43

The Teaching School Alliance (TSA) that forms the focus of this project (the ‘Excellence Together TSA’) is made up of 31 schools, of all phases, and is situated in the south of Hampshire (England). The work of the alliance is coordinated by its Director, who made contact with the author of this chapter in 2015, to seek support as the TSA began to develop its approach to engaging in research and the rollout of research-informed practice. The RLN model was proposed and agreed upon. The director also canvassed schools within the alliance in order to encourage their participation and to ascertain which areas/research base they would like to focus on. In total eight schools expressed an interest in participating (these eight comprised four primary schools and four secondary schools). These schools also expressed an interest in two focus areas: growth mindsets and Assessment for Learning (AfL). Correspondingly, two RLNs were established: comprising two groups of four schools. Each RLN specialized in one of the focus areas.

3.4.1 Selecting participants In total 16 practitioners from eight schools were involved in the project. In keeping with core idea #2, this group was made up of eight senior leaders (who were either school leaders/headteachers, assistant heads or the deputy heads of schools) and eight opinion formers. To identify opinion formers, a social network survey was administered to all teaching staff within schools, including school leaders, classroom teachers, instructional support staff, etc. (see Chapter 10 for more information on social network surveys). Social network data were initially collected in two key areas. First, we asked participants to assess the frequency of their expertise-related interactions with other colleagues of their school. This was assessed by asking teachers to identify names in response to the question ‘to whom do you turn as reliable sources of expertise in terms of teaching and learning’; with teachers selecting colleagues from a pre-populated drop-down list. Teachers were then asked to indicate how often they engaged with specific colleagues. In addition to the frequency of their teaching and learning related interactions, participants were also asked to assess the quality of such interactions by reflecting their degree of usefulness.2 Relationships recorded as being ‘high quality’, that is, more frequent and more useful (Carley & Krackhardt, 1999), were then extracted. A similar process was repeated in order to ascertain the value respondents placed on the opinions proffered by their colleagues (‘to whom do you turn when seeking out opinions on new teaching practices’). Combining these results, those actors with high scores in terms of both the frequency and quality of their advice-giving relationships with teachers, and who were turned to by more colleagues for their opinion were then highlighted as potential galvanizers in terms of support for new initiatives, as well as those likely to be able to promote the adoption of new practices. More specifically, it was thought this promotion would be realized through the dissemination of advice and support in terms of how such practices might best be used.

44  Chris Brown

3.4.2 Employing cycles of enquiry In order to facilitate a process that would enable RLN participants to go through the stages of engaging with research and developing new practices, building their expertise in how, when and why such approaches should be used (core idea #1) and then rolling these out within school (core idea #3), a cycle of enquiry approach was used. In particular, the RLN model involved participants attending four workshops over the course of an academic year (October to June), with the content of these workshops as follows: in workshop one, participants focused on understanding the research and network held knowledge about the specific issues being explored (for example how to ensure children develop growth mindsets), also to understand what impact might look like and how (and what) to collect in order to establish the baseline (i.e. the here and now) picture. In workshop two, we explored the baseline in more detail, developed a research-informed approach to improving practice within each school and considered how this approach might be trialed effectively. Workshop three enabled participants to refine their approaches; the workshop was also used to introduce the idea of whole school change as well as change tools and change approaches. Finally, examined in workshop four were both impact and how to share knowledge of impact across the network and beyond. It is also clear, however, that with a networked approach participants within a Professional Learning Network (such as an RLN) must also subsequently engage in parallel activities within their school so that the benefits of this approach are achieved at scale. In other words, new knowledge is not just disseminated to colleagues but colleagues are also engaged with so that they can both input into the work of the learning community and also adopt from the learning community to transform their practice (e.g. Earl & Katz, 2006). Thus, following workshop one, participants returned to their settings to share what had been learned, to refine their research questions and to collect baseline evidence. Following workshop two, participants began to trial their approach and collect data regarding its effectiveness as well as engage colleagues to share what they were doing; following workshop three, participants engaged in a setting-wide rollout of their initiative; and after workshop four, impact data was shared with colleagues as a way of promoting take-up. In a sense, these inter-sessional tasks thus represent a double helix of related activity undertaken by participants in between workshop activities and that reflects and augments what they themselves had experienced. A depiction of the ‘double helix’ cycle of enquiry is set out in Figure 3.1.

3.4.3 The use of knowledge creation activity In order to address core idea #1, within the first workshop protocols and exercises were developed to facilitate processes of knowledge creation. More specifically, these protocols and exercises were designed to enable participants to engage in learning conversations by bringing together ‘what is known’ in terms

Research Learning Networks: A case study  45

Workshop 1: Understand Int. sess. 1: Share

Int. sess. 2: Trial

Workshop 3: Refine

Int. sess. 4: Share impact FIGURE 3.1 

Workshop 2: Develop

Int. sess. 3: Embed

Workshop 4: Take stock

Structure of the four workshop approach.

of existing formal knowledge with what they know about their context, their pupils and what they currently see as effective practice based on their own experience and the experience of others in the network. The first exercise was designed to explore the second of these (‘what practitioners know’). Here practitioners were asked to use a ‘data capture’ mat to help them consider, discuss and record: •• •• ••

an aspect of their practice that ‘works’ in relation to the topic area; the absolute best practice in schools in relation to the topic area; and the basis for making these statements: that is, what’s the evidence for their claims?

In order to introduce RLN participants to the research evidence relating to their focus area, we drew upon a learning conversation exercise developed by Stoll and Brown (2015) as part of an ESRC funded knowledge transfer project (Middle Leaders as Catalysts for Evidence-Informed Change). Here, rather than ask practitioners to engage with research directly in the form of the literature reviews developed for the project, attempts were made to ensure ‘formal’ research knowledge was: (1) blended with people’s surfaced tacit knowledge;

46  Chris Brown

(2) encountered in manageable units of meaning and in accessible formats; (3) engaged with as part of a social process of meaning making (Stoll & Brown, 2015). As such, each body of research was introduced as strips of information: that is, the main content of each literature review developed for the RLN groups was turned into small ‘bite size’ chunks, with these then printed and cut into strips of paper. Participants were then asked to work in pairs or threes to discuss each strip or chunk and then to allocate it a meaning (a theme) and to then iteratively develop these themes as they worked their way through the strips. Following this, participants were asked to complete a second data capture mat, a rubric that asked participants to consider how the research and their resultant themes: (1) connected with their own knowledge and practice as expressed in the first exercise; (2) deepened their own knowledge and practice as expressed in the first exercise; and (3) challenged their own knowledge and practice as expressed in the first exercise. Participants were then provided with overall and individual literature reviews for their topic areas.

3.4.4 Trialing and refining research-informed interventions In workshop two participants were invited to develop innovations or new practices to address their research questions; with a necessary requirement being that these should be informed by not only the research they engaged with in workshop one but also their own personal practice-based knowledge and the knowledge of other RLN participants. In order to then help participants develop expertise in the use of these practices they were introduced to the notion of Joint Practice Development (Fielding et al., 2005): that is, approaches to the trial and iterative refinement of new practices that involve collaboration with others. Approaches to Joint Practice Development (JPD) include ‘Lesson Study’, ‘Learning Walks’ and ‘Peer Observation’. In between workshops two and three, the main inter-sessional task for participants was to use one JPD-type approach to help them trial, develop and improve their strategy in response to a variety of situations. The benefit of engaging in JPD activity is that it allows teachers to trial and refine new practices, meaning they gain firsthand experience of how and when their application is effective. Participating teachers also get feedback from colleagues in terms of how their application might be improved further.Thus, the collaborative aspect of JPD means that additional teacher held knowledge is used to further develop the new practices. What’s more, if the approach also involves the colleagues of RLN members experimenting with new practices, RLN participants are also given further clues in terms of how new practices and approaches might be rolled out more widely.

3.4.5 Learning about leading change In keeping with the suggestions made by Stoll and Brown (2015), in workshop three RLN participants learned about how to lead educational change in a ­theory-rich way. In particular, participants were introduced to frameworks on leading change

Research Learning Networks: A case study  47

developed by Kotter (1996) and Fullan (2001). Ideas from other scholars (e.g. the work of Hall & Hord, 2001; Kaser & Halbert, 2009; and Stoll & Fink, 1996) were also engaged with, and other related concepts such as adopter types (Rogers, 2003) also employed as part of the change leadership capacity-building exercises. In addition, participants were introduced to the notion of theories of change: the ‘theory’ or story of how organizations intend to make change happen (Earl & Timperley, 2015). The main outcome from the workshop was the production, by participants, of a change leadership strategy, building on the key change leadership principals they had encountered and presented as a theory of change. The purpose of this strategy was to establish how participants intended to roll out their new practices within their school.

3.5 The impact of the RLN approach This section of the chapter now seeks to understand whether, and to what extent, the assumptions underpinning the RLN model have resulted in an approach that has been able to: (1) help participating practitioners engage with research and help them develop new practices informed by both research and their own and network held practitioner knowledge; (2) enable RLN participants to embed the wider use of research-informed innovations/practices among their colleagues/across their schools (so achieving change at scale); and (3) deliver, via the ­introduction of research-informed practices, positive changes in the teaching and learning activity that occurs within participating schools (so achieving impact at scale).

3.5.1 Measuring the extent to which the RLN approach helped participants engage with research To examine the effectiveness of the RLN approach in helping participants to engage with research, a self-completion survey was used. The survey adopted a version of the Knott and Wildavsky (1980) ‘ladder of research use’ scale using the following descriptor terms, with responses measured using a five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’: 1 Reception: The research was well communicated. 2 Cognition: I understood the findings of the research. 3 Discussion: I discussed with others within my RLN network/activity groups how the research might be used. 4 Reference: I could relate the research findings to my area of focus. 5 Effort: I used the research in subsequent exercises (when thinking about the approaches I might use to address my area of focus). 6 Influence: I applied the research as part of the interventions I subsequently developed.

48  Chris Brown

3.5.2 Examining perspectives on how the RLN approach helped participants develop new practices informed by research and their own practitioner knowledge To explore participants’ opinions on whether the RLN model helped them engage with and combine research with their own knowledge and the knowledge of the other network members, the same self-completion survey was also used to help participants ascertain if and how they felt the RLN approach: •• •• ••

helped them better understand their own knowledge in relation to their focus area; helped them develop a better understanding of the focus area based on the knowledge of those in the RLN; helped them develop strategies that married the research presented, their own knowledge and the knowledge of those in the RLN.

Participants were also asked to provide reasons or examples to accompany each response.

3.5.3 Assessing the extent to which transformative teaching/ improved student outcomes result from a wider adoption of research-informed practice To assess the extent to which the RLN approach helped participants embed the wider use of research-informed practices they developed amongst their colleagues/ across their schools; as well as assess the impact of the introduction of these researchinformed practices, six in-depth semi-structured interviews were held with pairs of participants (i.e. the views of 12 participants were sought altogether). The interviews covered three areas: (1) participants’ knowledge and confidence in relation to leading change; (2) the actions undertaken to embed their newly developed research-informed practices; and (3) whether rollout of these practices had any impact on teaching and learning activity.

3.5.4 Has the RLN approach helped participants engage with research? Results from the 13 responses to the amended Knott and Wildavsky (1980) ‘ladder of research use’ scale are set out in Table 3.1. As can be seen, responses to the survey were positive, with participants agreeing that they had been able to both engage with research knowledge and use this to develop interventions to tackle key areas of teaching and learning within their schools. In particular, it seems that introducing participants to pertinent research messages via the use of ‘strips’ or chunks of information and asking them to collaboratively establish key themes led to participants believing that the research was well communicated (all 13 respondents ‘agreed’ or

Research Learning Networks: A case study  49 TABLE 3.1  Responses to the ‘ladder of research use’ scale

Reception Cognition Discussion Reference Effort Influence

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Total

5 1 4 3 4 2

8 11 9 10 8 10

1 1 1

-

-

13 13 13 13 13 13

‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for reception), and to the research being understood (12 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for cognition). This also applied to its potential use value being discussed (all 13 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for discussion). What’s more, the subsequent exercises meant that participants were able to relate the research to their area of focus or issues they were concerned about (all 13 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for reference), to think about potential strategies to improve teaching and learning (12 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for effort) and to develop specific approaches to influencing the growth mindsets and learning styles of children and adults, or ways in which assessment for learning was undertaken within their school (12 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the descriptor for influence).

3.5.5 Does the RLN approach help participants develop new practices informed by both research and their own practitioner knowledge/the knowledge of those in the network? Our knowledge creation activity also comprised activities to help participants surface their own tacit knowledge, as well as activities to enable participants to combine ‘what is known’, meaning formal research knowledge, with ‘what they know’, meaning their effective practice and the shared effective practices of others.The aim of combining this knowledge being to develop research-informed interventions that are built on the best practices that they already engage in as teachers. To assess the effectiveness of this approach, participants were asked to consider the extent to which they agreed that the RLN approach and activities: (1) helped them better understand their own knowledge in relation to their focus area; (2) helped them develop a better understanding of the focus area based on the knowledge of those in the RLN; and (3) helped them develop strategies that married the research they engaged with, their own knowledge and the knowledge of those in the RLN.With all three questions, all 13 respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that the RLN approach did this. Participants also provided written comments to explain their responses. Thematically analyzing these comments highlighted the importance of

50  Chris Brown

the facilitated discussion activities. In particular, how these discussions enabled participants to not only think about their own existing knowledge, but also to situate their knowledge in relation to the knowledge and viewpoints of others.This is seen in the following example responses: As always TIME for discussion and consolidation with fellow practitioners with a similar focus has allowed me to consolidate and challenge my thinking. This has been one of the most important elements [senior leader: secondary school #1] Sharing and feedback kept us open to other ways to discuss our focus area. [senior leader: primary school #3] Listening to others in the network has encouraged me to reflect on my own practice. [senior leader: secondary school #4] The discussion activities were also vital for providing a variety of perspectives in terms of how to develop and implement potential research-informed strategies, for example: Discussion during the ‘muddled up’ literature review exercise allowed me to think about how the research could be used in real life settings. [opinion leader: primary school #4] Discussions within the RLN group have been helpful to develop understanding and discuss most/least effective strategies and ways to implement. [opinion former: secondary school #1] The research group has helped me to really understand what AfL means for early years practice. [opinion former: primary school #2] The research provided stimulus but the discussion helped me hone how to use and implement research-informed strategies. [opinion former: secondary school #2]

3.5.6 Did the RLN approach enable participants to embed the wider use of these research-informed innovations/practices amongst their colleagues/across their schools? In all six of the paired interviews, respondents indicated that, as a result of participating in the project, they had either set up intra-school learning communities, or had made better use of existing communities. The purpose of such communities was to both establish a supportive culture, as well as to provide a vehicle through which to facilitate teacher engagement with the RITP strategies developed by participants. Participants believed that employing learning networks was a direct result of the RLN approach providing them with the confidence and knowledge to lead change focused on achieving RITP. This is illustrated, for example, by the following quotes:

Research Learning Networks: A case study  51

[name of opinion former] now has the confidence to use [the school’s teacher learning community] to share resources and engage staff in discussions centred on facilitating research-informed change. We have also been trying to facilitate a culture of trust, encouraging staff to talk openly about mistakes [in using the approaches] and their ongoing learning journey. [senior leader: secondary school #3] We’ve found the process has informed us in terms of how to refine our approach to leading and implementing change and will continue to do so. [senior leader: primary school #2] What’s more, a reflection of this increased knowledge and confidence to lead change could be seen in the roles played by senior leaders and opinion formers. The following quote, for example, shows the role played by one senior leader: [name of senior leader] is actively promoting a culture to promote researchinformed change and for 2016/17 has allocated four [staff training days] to ensure staff do this. We also now have a budget for books and other research resources to help with the continued development of our approaches. She is really walking the talk. [opinion former: primary school #3] Likewise, other senior leaders (primary schools #2 and #3) discussed how they had ensured that their research-informed strategies were now formally linked to their schools’ improvement plans. The interviews with participants from secondary school #2 likewise spotlighted how the head teacher for that school had ensured the focus on growth mindsets was embedded in school improvement documentation and had become an integral part of the school’s vision. In another interview the explicit division of leadership roles between participants was highlighted, showcasing how the role of the opinion former was directed at leading change through the use of influence (e.g. Spillane et al., 2010): While my role is to formally lead change, [name of opinion former] is using our learning community to lead change by galvanizing support [for new approaches to teaching and learning]. [senior leader: secondary school #3] The interview data reaffirms the importance of enabling teachers to understand how to lead educational change in a theory-rich way if they are to ensure that research-informed strategies can be rolled out and adopted by others.

3.5.7 Does the RLN approach help participants improve the teaching and learning activity within their schools? Interview data from all six discussions also suggested that the focus on achieving research-informed improvements in teaching and learning was having a positive impact on teaching practice. For example, the focus of participants in primary

52  Chris Brown

school #4 had been on improving teachers’ understanding of the effective characteristics of learning, and understanding whether this approach might positively impact on writing outcomes for summer born children (which are typically lower than those of their older peers). Changes in teacher practice noted here by participants included: ‘changes to teachers’ planning activity to move away from curriculum specific foci’; that ‘learning values are now driving teaching practice [rather than end of year goals]’; that teachers were ‘more actively looking for effective learning behaviors’; and that across the school there was a more general focus on ‘getting children to use the language of learning so reflecting on their own learning’. In another school (primary school #1), participants had been working with teachers to help them use pupils’ mistakes as a way to enhance learning outcomes. It was noted by participants that, as a result, teachers were now effectively evidencing children’s mistakes as well as helping pupils to explicitly consider their thinking processes as a means to learn from mistakes. Likewise, these participants were now regularly observing teachers in the school praising effort and perseverance rather than simple achievement (or lack thereof). They also noted that teachers were now regularly sharing their experiences, as well as impacts and benefits that had resulted from using the mistake typology, in order to maximize its effectiveness across the school. In addition to changes in teaching practice, participants from three of the schools could also provide detail on emerging impacts on student learning that had resulted from these research-informed changes. For instance, one primary school respondent noted how: at the beginning of the project we met with a group of mixed ability children and asked them to complete a problem solving task. Using our observation schedules we found that [the students] literally asked no open or probing questions. [opinion former: primary school #3] As a result of this initial investigation, participants from this school devised approaches to help teachers develop children’s questioning skills and worked with teachers in their school to ensure these strategies were used effectively. The results have been positive: the children demonstrate an understanding of the importance of questioning and are now using questioning themselves to reflect upon and assess their learning. [opinion former: primary school #3] As touched on above, participants in primary school #1 had sought to develop a ‘growth mindset’ amongst their pupils by introducing children to the idea that making mistakes forms an integral part of the learning journey.They explored with children the notion of a mistake ‘typology’; one which differentiated between different forms of mistakes. As a result, teachers were able to identify which mistakes

Research Learning Networks: A case study  53

were most likely to lead to enhanced learning and progress. Likewise, teachers could also identify which mistakes could and should be eliminated through due care and attention by children to their work. Having succeeded in ensuring that all teachers in the school also regularly and consistently used the mistake typology as part of their teaching – as well as treat specific forms of mistakes as an acceptable way to learn – respondents noted from their interviews with children and via the scrutiny of pupils’ work that: Children are starting to understand in more depth how mistakes are part of the learning journey and are demonstrating more confidence in using mistakes. It’s no coincidence that they are attempting more challenging tasks. [opinion former: primary school #1] The focus for primary school #4 was to improve writing amongst summer born children; this group being much less likely than older children to meet mandated progress targets during their first year at school. Participants illustrated this issue with the school’s writing data for 2015, which highlighted that only 60% of summer born children met their year 1 Early Learning Goals for writing in comparison to 83% of autumn born children. Having engaged with both the research base and, through the knowledge creation activities, the knowledge of other network members, these participants came to understand that year 1 represents the first time that children are measured against a curriculum-specific expectation rather than one related to age. In turn that this meant year 1 teachers were focusing on and rewarding performance in relation to specific curriculum areas rather than in terms of how children approached their learning in the round. It is noted above that this understanding, combined with the development of research-informed strategies for how writing outcomes could be improved, subsequently resulted in participants instigating a number of changes to school practice. These changes reflected a shift in emphasis towards teachers valuing the process of learning and rewarding the learning values exhibited by children, and a move away from focusing on curricular-related progression. Participants argued that these strategies worked extremely well; ultimately leading, they suggest, a rise in the number of children meeting their writing Early Learning Goals in 2016 to 86%: an improvement of 26%.

3.6 Conclusion From the data analyzed above, it is clear that the RLN approach – with its underpinning core ideas and structured approach – has been successful in facilitating participating teachers to engage with research in relation to two specific areas of teaching and learning: growth mindsets and AfL. It also enabled participants to marry this knowledge to their own practical knowledge and the wider knowledge of those in the RLN in order to develop research-informed interventions (with the aim of these interventions being to improve particular aspects of teaching and

54  Chris Brown

learning activity with their schools). Perhaps more vital, however – and perhaps key for PLNs more generally – is the importance of ensuring that all RLN participants were leaders of one form or another. More specifically, by helping these leaders know what is required to deliver change effectively, the RLN model has also proven successful in terms of providing participants with the capacity to embed the wider use of the research-informed practices, developed as part of the networked activity, amongst their colleagues/across their schools. In other words, use of formal and informal leaders means that the network learning approach has been successful in achieving change at scale because it ensures innovation can transfer from network to school. In addition, and while still early days, we also have some evidence to indicate positive impact resulting from the introduction of these research-informed practices, both for teachers and for learners: also suggesting that our networked approach led to impact at scale.

Notes 1

2

The Education Endowment Foundation is a grant-making charity whose work centers on identifying and funding promising educational innovations that address the needs of disadvantaged children in primary and secondary schools in England. See: http:// educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about, accessed on 15 May 2016. The quality of ties were measured using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all useful) to 5 (Very useful).

References Battilana, J. and Casicaro, T. (2013). The network secret of great change agents, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1–8. Brown, C. (2015). Research Learning Networks – school leaders connecting research to practice. Presented at the British Educational Leadership Management & Administration Society annual meeting, Wokefield Park, Reading, 10–12 July 2015. Bryk, A., Gomez, L. and Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education, in Hallinan, M. (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education, Frontiers in sociology and social research (Dordrecht, NL: Springer). Cain, T. (2015). Teachers’ engagement with published research: Addressing the knowledge problem. Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 488–509. Carley, K. and Krackhardt, D. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship, Social Networks, 18 (1), 1–27. Cordingley, P. (2013). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development, available at: www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERA-Paper-5Continuing-professional-development-and-learning.pdf, accessed on 22 November 2014. Earl, L. and Katz, S. (2006). How Networked Learning Communities Work, Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series Paper 155. Earl, L. and Timperley, H. (2008). Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work, in Earl, L. and Timperley, H. (Eds) Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (Dordrecht, NL: Springer). Earl, L. and Timperley H. (2015). Evaluative thinking for successful educational innovation, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 122 (Paris: OECD Publishing).

Research Learning Networks: A case study  55

Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S., Horne, M., Robinson, C. and Thorp, J. (2005). Factors influencing the transfer of good practice, available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/; www.education.gov.uk/ publications/eOrderingDownload/RR615.pdf.pdf, accessed on 21 May 2016. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd edn.), (New York and London: Teachers College Press and RoutledgeFalmer). Gough, D., Tripney, J., Kenny, C., Buk-Berge, E. (2011). Evidence informed policymaking in education in Europe: EIPPEE final project report summary, available at: www.eipee.eu/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=W6vkqDjbiI%3d&tabid=2510&language=en-GB, accessed on 11 September 2012. Hall, G. E. and Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hammersley-Fletcher, L. and Lewin, C. (2015). Evidence-based teaching: Advancing capability and capacity for enquiry in schools. Interim report (Nottingham: National College for School Leadership). Kaser, L. and Halbert, J. (2009). Leadership mindsets (London: Routledge). Katz, S. and Dack, L. (2013). Intentional interruption: Breaking down barriers to transform professional practice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press). Knott, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(4), 537–78. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press) Mincu, M. (2014). Inquiry paper 6: Teacher quality and school improvement – what is the role of research? In the British Educational Research Association/The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (Eds), The role of research in teacher education: Reviewing the evidence, available at: www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2014/02/BERA-RSA-Interim-Report.pdf, accessed on 8 November 2014 Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation (New York: Oxford University Press). Ogawa, R. and Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality, Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–43. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn.), (New York: Free Press). Southworth, G. (2009). Learning centred leadership, in Davies, B. (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (2nd edn.), (London: Sage). Spillane, J., Healey, K. and Kim, C. (2010). Leading and managing instruction: Formal and informal aspects of elementary school organization, in Daly, A. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press). Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools (Buckingham: Open University Press). Stoll, L. and Brown, C. (2015). Middle leaders as catalysts for evidence-informed change, in Brown, C. (Ed.), Leading the use of research and evidence in schools (London: IOE Press). Stoll, L., Brown, C., Spence-Thomas, K. and Taylor, C. (2015). Perspectives on teacher leadership for evidence-informed improvement in England, Leading and Managing: Journal of the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, 21 (2), 76–91.

4 DEVELOPING COMMUNITIES OF PEDAGOGICAL INQUIRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Leyton Schnellert, Paige Fisher and Kathy Sanford

4.1 Introduction This chapter focuses on an inquiry-oriented and multi-partner approach to teacher education and teacher professional learning created to inspire and support transformational change. In the project described in this chapter, the formation of and interactions between three regional Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) empowered educators to re-imagine and redesign practices and structures across institutions, roles and regions in British Columbia (BC). Section 4.1.1 briefly introduces the membership and overall structure and purpose of the Three Campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry Project. In Section 4.2 this approach to PLNs is situated within relevant educational theory and research. In Section 4.3 we describe how we arrived at a cross-hub inquiry question. Each regional hub is introduced in Section 4.4 to illustrate the processes and impact of local learning networks. Section 4.5 delves into themes across the regional networks. In Section 4.6 we conclude with a reflection on what we have learned about promoting and sustaining successful Professional Learning Networks.

4.1.1 Aligning system change among K-12, teacher education and ministries of education The Three Campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry Project is a formalized Professional Learning Network among the BC Ministry of Education, three BC Faculties of Education, and numerous BC school districts. All partners work collaboratively within and across regional hubs comprised of teachers, teacher educators, teacher candidates, and school and school district leaders. The project aims to support education transformation using the implementation of BC’s newly redesigned curriculum as a change catalyst for collaborative reflective practice and inquiry

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  57

leading to deep learning and system change. This study examines how education partners inquire together and learn from and with each other while also providing ongoing feedback and illustrations to the Ministry of Education so as to support ongoing transformation across British Columbia.

4.2 Theoretical underpinnings 4.2.1 Calls for pedagogical and system change Twentieth-century models of education, drawing on expert knowledge that is disseminated from teacher to student, are no longer appropriate or meaningful in today’s world (Darling-Hammond et al., 2008; Leander et al., 2010). In response to current theory, research and workforce demands, curriculum transformation in BC takes up socio-constructivist, situated and emergent perspectives on learning, teaching, and knowing (Dumont et al., 2010). However, providing support to teachers for transformation of their practice is often challenging, particularly when their current practices have been recognized as successful in preparing students to achieve well within the current system and to meet high standards on international assessments such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s PISA program. Research and practice indicate that when collaborative educator professional learning is used as a ‘doorway’ toward new conceptions of student engagement and achievement, all partners benefit, student learning deepens, curricular and timetable barriers diminish, and educators become engaged in reflective praxis that ultimately and inherently translates to richer and more meaningful learning experiences for students (Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Butler et al., 2015). Educational stakeholders, including universities, school districts, schools, and governments, need to work collaboratively to spur change called for by research (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2008; OECD, 2013). Throughout any jurisdiction, pockets of innovation currently exist, yet when these ‘pockets’ are recognized more widely and networked with each other, their potential to nurture and create acceptance of innovative practice can be greatly enhanced. Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) comprised teacher candidates, practicing teachers, teacher educators and the Ministry of Education staff can offer spaces for policy, practice, and programs throughout a jurisdiction to undergo transformative changes simultaneously. When PLNs engage in collaborative inquiry to explore, implement, share and document innovations, pedagogical and system change can become more widespread.

4.2.2 Complexity and education as a learning system Learning to teach, and learning to learn in the 21st century is more complex than ever. Contextual factors such as culture, gender, language and ability are aspects of diversity that create increasingly complex realities in today’s schools and classrooms and challenge our previous assumptions of, and practices in, classrooms and schools.

58  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

Identifying education as a learning system informed by complexity thinking offers a new way for education stakeholders to work and learn collaboratively in ways that support and inform system change at all levels. Complexity depends on the concept of learning as a ‘system’, in which multiple elements are interrelated in intricate multifaceted networks, where learning is emergent, continually adapting, and self-organizing (Davis & Sumara, 2012). We draw from complexity theory to position Professional Learning Networks as contextually derived generative communities of inquiry that can support all members to redefine their roles, practice, and educational change. Complex systems such as Professional Learning Networks can foster and exhibit emergence, adaptability, and self-organization. In this project, Lysaker and Furuness’ (2011) notion of ‘dialogic relationally-oriented pedagogy’ offered us a way to embrace complexity and the potential of teacher education and K-12 systems learning together to challenge more transmission-oriented conceptions of teaching and learning. Both the way that the PLNs were ‘structured’ and the in situ pedagogical explorations of the PLN members were co-constructed drew on learners’ interests, strengths, wonderings and diverse funds of knowledge. Through dialogue, Professional Learning Networks can create systems of relationships and negotiated meanings between ourselves, our students and our contexts where understanding emerges, adapts, and self-organizes in meaningful and instructive ways. Decentering and decolonizing knowledge and practice within PLNs reorients teaching and learning as critical and creative thinking, personal and social awareness and responsibility, and critical literacy – the very competencies required of 21st-century learners. In order for a complex system to emerge there must be enough diversity in its makeup to allow it the ability to adapt to demands of the environment, but there must also be enough redundancy (commonality) between members to maintain coherence (shared understandings) and the ability to adapt to stresses of participation. Shared knowledge, skills and understandings emerge within the PLN as members of the system interact with each other (Sanford et al., 2015).

4.2.3 Relational interactions and complexity Relational interactions are by their nature complex and interwoven. Relationality for all learning requires partners to consider the needs of the other before our own needs, a concept in tension with more neo-liberal, individualistic hierarchies of knowing and being. This theoretical understanding of relational accountability is deeply informed by Indigenous wisdom, grounded in a tradition where understanding is about relationships with other people and ideas in interconnected ways (Sanford et al., 2012; Wilson, 2008). By using a “catalytic affiliation” model (Sanford & McGregor, 2013), we recognize the power of affiliation among educators and diverse ways of understanding education, in collaborative spaces that ‘catalyze’ change. In reframing where we place our attention in teacher education and K-12 learning programs, we shift our

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  59

focus to relationality and location (space and place), creating new spaces in which the voices of teachers, teacher educators, school district leaders, teacher candidates and K-12 students can intertwine in rich meaningful ways, enabling transformation of educational thinking and practice. For example, in this project, PLNs were formed based on relationships between teacher educators, district and school-based educators, teacher candidates and Ministry of Education staff.Trust had been developed through in situ collaborative learning described later in this paper. The impetus for PLN formation was a newly redesigned curriculum organized around big ideas and core competencies. Just as this new curriculum created space for more emergent, adaptive and self-organizing learning and teaching in K-12 classrooms, the time of curriculum change created opportunity (space) to come together and de/re/construct practice in regional, cross-role hubs (place).

4.2.4 Liminality that promotes learning Professional learning networks can also benefit by recognizing ‘liminality’ as central to how PLNs are created, operate and grow. Liminal spaces are spaces ‘in between’. They can be utilized to welcome diverse ideas and the exploration of possibilities (Schnellert et al., 2015) so that relations flourish and conditions create opportunities to “challenge and disrupt established norms” (Cook-Sather & Alter, 2011: 39). In this project, liminal spaces were created in between much of education’s current practice and the ambitious aims of the Ministry of Education to transform education through a simultaneous and pervasive redesign of curriculum, assessment and accountability processes. These liminal spaces enabled new and innovative practices to emerge, connect, and develop. The resulting enthusiasm of educators, combined with uncertainty in the field, created spaces where educators from diverse roles found themselves learning with and from each other rather than maintaining traditional hierarchical roles of experts/novices and academics/practitioners.

4.3 Arriving at a research question This multi-organization learning partnership was conceptualized and implemented as a democratic cross-province learning network among all partners. We recognized that if BC’s education transformation efforts were to unfold in system-wide, authentic, and sustainable ways, all system partners needed to work and learn collaboratively considering how best to support learners and educators (at all levels) through changes in policy, programs, and practice. As a result, all project partners contributed financial and in-kind resources, and had equal voice as part of a project steering committee. The steering committee worked collaboratively to make decisions, set priorities, provide leadership, as well as assess ongoing project progress and impacts. This way of working represented a welcome paradigm shift in which no one partner was the ‘expert’ or held control over operational activities through financial or legal authority – a shift that reflects, in a practical way, the same theoretical framework upon which the PLN project activities were based.

60  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

Project partners believed it was important that all partners (including the Ministry of Education) participated as facilitators, contributors, and learners focused on working together to authentically shift an education system. We recognized that all partners needed to work, learn, shift programs, try out new practices, offer feedback, and support BC learners together and in collaboration with each other in order for sustainable and widespread transformation to occur. The belief that ‘we are stronger and smarter together’ was reflected in our collective decision making and local in situ activities. This collective decision making was used to arrive at our shared question, as each steering committee member was offered equal voice in refining the focus of our inquiry: What are the impacts on educator professional learning and student engagement when educators work collaboratively within and across learning contexts to explore the possibilities and challenges of bringing to life BC’s new curriculum for transformation? The question was central to the work in our individual hubs, and to the ways that we sought to examine the experiences of project participants by exploring the data for themes common to the hubs collectively. Drawing on the aforementioned theories of complexity and catalytic affiliation, the design of the PLN recognized that context is significant and unique to each university, school district, school, and classroom.

4.4 System partners working and learning together to transform education at all levels From its inception, these regional nested learning hubs were designed to facilitate collaboration between innovative models of teacher education. As learning partners, participants in the regional hubs were striving to dissolve the ‘difficult gap’ between research and practice through offering teacher education coursework in schools in collaboration with educators engaged in innovative pedagogy and striving to make local and system-level change. All participants in the partnership hubs engaged in cycles of action and critically reflective conversation designed to support transformational shifts in their local education system. Representatives from each hub met regularly and engaged together to learn from and inspire each other towards renewed action and reflection. In the following sections, we briefly describe each of the situated networks (hubs) connected to local teacher education programs, schools and their activities. Each hub description highlights innovative approaches to teacher education that foster collaborative inquiry. Analysis of data collected from semi-structured interviews and artifacts is used to illustrate the processes and impact of the learning networks. We then look at themes across networks and conclude with a reflection on what we have learned about promoting and sustaining successful networks.

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  61

4.4.1 Vancouver Island University (VIU) network hub The core feature of this hub is the relocation of some teacher education coursework off campus and into schools. This model for teacher education is based on strong relationships between VIU and local schools and districts that began in 2012 with one school and one cohort and has grown considerably in breadth and depth over subsequent years. Each cohort of 34 pre-service teachers is located at a selected school and placed in groups of three to five with a mentoring teacher. Faculty members offer explicit instruction around educational theories and methods and work hand in hand with classroom teachers to offer modeling of teaching strategies and opportunities for pre-service teachers to apply new learning in ‘real time’.Weekly seminars are used to draw pre-service teachers’ attention to concrete illustrations of ‘theory-in-­practice’ and to provoke critical dialogue and reflection on practice. The main focuses of the coursework are social-emotional dimensions of learning, formative assessment, interdisciplinary instructional design and communication of student learning. For example, through observation and practice the pre-service teachers learn about the necessity of knowing their learners as social-emotional beings as well as their academic needs as a precursor to designing effective instruction for them. They observe the ways that their mentor teachers build classroom community, conduct case study observations of learners, participate in literacy and numeracy assessments, compose communications about student learning and co-create interdisciplinary units of instruction. Most of this work is done within a particular classroom so that pre-service teachers and K-12 students benefit from the strong relationships that develop over time. In addition, mentorship support meetings are offered each month as a way to bring mentoring teachers from different schools together with faculty members to ask questions and learn from each other. Regional ‘drive-in’ meetings are offered three times during the school year. These meetings offer a space for educators from varied roles across a broad geographical region to learn together. Each meeting explores a theme or topic related to educational transformation such as a focus on competencies over content, approaches to classroom assessment or interdisciplinary teaching and learning. All attendees bring stories, questions, samples, and insights and connect with each other to deepen their understanding under the mantra ‘We are all teachers, we are all learners’. Interviews with participants and artifacts from meetings revealed varied facets of experience. Faculty members experienced a shift in their traditional roles as they moved off campus and into schools and classrooms. They felt that they had benefited from the opportunity to ‘live’ opportunities and challenges created by curriculum change alongside their colleagues in the field while developing stronger relationships with their pre-service teachers and field-based practitioners.They also gained new insights into their own instructional practice. Mentoring teachers experienced a richly contextualized form of professional learning as the ongoing presence of pre-service teachers and faculty members

62  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

offered them new perspectives on their own practices as their work was deconstructed, examined, and critiqued. They were able to experience teaching anew as a collaborative endeavor as pre-service teachers shared responsibilities within the classrooms. Pre-service teachers are beginning to see the ways in which theory informs practice. They were able to draw on concrete examples of theoretical principles as they discussed and reflected on the practices they had observed. They were also able to witness first-hand the impacts of specific practices such as sharing learning intentions or offering feedback to learners. As they reflected on their roles in collaborative teams, they described the challenges and the depth of learning that were the result of teaching in collaboration. One of the most significant impacts reported by interview participants was a feeling of reciprocal learning relationships, new understandings around effective collaboration and a sense of renewed enthusiasm and energy that was sparked by a feeling of joint endeavor across roles.

4.4.2 UBC Okanagan (UBCO) network hub The work of the UBCO Hub stems from the development over several years of (1) Middle School Integrated Methods, a teacher education course offered as in situ collaborative learning with educators in four middle and secondary schools spanning three school districts, and (2) collaboration between literacy researchers and practitioners to redesign elementary teacher education literacy courses to recast how teacher candidates are prepared, and to disrupt and extend pre-service and in-service teachers’ understandings of literacy learning, pedagogy and curriculum (Schnellert & Kozak, 2016). These courses are offered in the Fall semester (September-December) each year. Then from January-June UBCO’s Professional Learning Network meets monthly, offering a space for teacher candidates, teacher educators, and teachers and leaders from five regional school districts (three urban, two rural) to come together to support one another in exploring the redesigned BC curriculum, building on our in situ work together in the Fall. Each monthly meeting begins with participants setting a shared intention to welcome diverse perspectives and examples to both spur inquiry into the renewed curriculum, and disrupt assumptions and preconceptions about teaching and learning, and education and schooling. Exploring contextually derived and creative ways to ‘bring the new curriculum to life’, each meeting has a theme or focus. For example, for one meeting, PLN members identified approaches to teaching and learning that empowered both students and teachers to bring their diverse funds of knowledge within inquiry-oriented, learning and teaching. Another meeting focused on interdisciplinary planning and teaching. Yet another focused on infusing and assessing competency-based learning. To build a positive and supportive PLN within meetings as examples and ideas are shared, feedback is offered by first celebrating efforts and then asking questions to help one another clarify intentions and next steps in their efforts. Hub members use Nancie Atwell’s (2015) ‘praise,

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  63

question, polish’ feedback format to achieve this. For the themes reported here, we primarily draw from interviews with participants. These include 22 teacher candidates, 3 district helping teachers, and 12 teachers in the field. UBCO hub data illustrate the potentially transformational and restorative learning benefits of collaborative inquiry. For example, collaborative inquiry amongst these teacher educators, teachers and teacher candidates fostered a mutually supportive PLN where explorations of interdisciplinarity and classroom inquiry changed educators’ understandings of curriculum, teaching and learning. Data analysis revealed that both teachers in schools and teacher candidates struggled with normative expectations of schools and teacher education. However, attention to these tensions within the PLN supported educators to counter entrenched university, school and classroom level practices. Some of the practices that teachers reported most commonly taking up included integrating social-emotional learning into their classrooms, privileging the development of critical thinking, creativity and personal and social responsibility over content coverage, and engaging students in defining the direction for their learning through inquiry-based learning. These overarching themes emerged through analysis of interview data and written artifacts and suggest that PLNs that seek out and cultivate collaborative inquiry spaces that connect pre- and in-service teachers and focus attention on responsive studentcentered curricular innovations can support educators to (re)gain a sense of agency.

4.4.3 University of Victoria network hub The network hub that developed in Victoria grew from the “Transforming University of Victoria” teacher education program (TRUVic) that has been developed since 2012, creating meaningful synergies between on-campus and schoolbased learning experiences with teacher partners and UVic faculty.This partnership has grown to include Ministry of Education partners as well as educators at all stages of their careers in a range of locations. Meetings were held regularly to discuss ways in which new curriculum implementation can support educational transformation. The intention of the Victoria hub’s meetings was to build on the development of the UVic teacher education program and to create “pedagogic contact zones” (McRobbie, 2009) – spaces in which disparate cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, places often marked by differences of power. In these spaces educators met to discuss ways to transform our educational practices and ideals through new curriculum implementation as well as to invite others into the conversation. These meetings led to exchanges of ideas and practices, visits to other schools/classrooms, and invitations for key educators to contribute to the conversations.The driving question for each of our meetings, posed by one of the early team members, was “What can we do together, supporting each other, that we could not do on our own?” Four major themes emerged from interviews with pre-service/in-service teachers and faculty members within the UVic hub, as well as members of the Ministry of Education as they were involved in the UVic hub:

64  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

•• •• ••

••

Benefits to their own professional learning An understanding of the possibilities/challenges afforded by the new curriculum The creation of a network of support, which exists both formally and informally, that educators may draw on as they continue to implement 21st-century teaching/learning practices Importance of learning from Indigenous learning principles and ways of knowing.

Participants involved in the project revealed numerous ways in which the hub meetings benefited their own professional development, including fostering a supportive community, learning from other educators in non-hierarchical ways, and sharing in an iterative curriculum development process with colleagues and Ministry personnel. Although somewhat daunting, implementing the new BC curriculum has provided support and encouragement to many new and experienced educators for their innovative and student-focused practices. Providing a space for educators to share the different ways in which the redesigned curriculum is, and can be, implemented expands participants’ understandings of the possibilities afforded by the redesigned curriculum in “passionate affinity spaces” (Gee & Hayes, 2011: 66). As members of an affinity space, they could also support each other as they met challenges and barriers to changing their practices. The emergence of support networks as a result of involvement with the project was seen by participants as having enormous value. These support networks extended beyond the meeting times and beyond the expected outcomes of the meetings, influencing discussions both on campus and in schools. Further, unique mentorship models emerged as a result of these meetings, which defied usual hierarchal structures and demonstrated opportunities for all participants, including novice teachers, to assume leadership roles in new ways. Finally, this UVic hub aspect of the project provided a space for participants to share and explore ideas regarding Indigenous learning principles. Participants of the project reported the ways in which Indigenous learning principles were being incorporated within their classrooms, as well as the resistance they encountered to including Indigenous curriculum and ideas within their classes. The unique structure of the 3 Campus project, which removed hierarchal structures and emphasized collaborative learning, embodied many of the Indigenous learning principles highlighted by the BC Education System,1 including: 1 Learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place). 2 Learning involves patience and time. 3 Learning requires exploration of one’s identity. Changing one’s practice requires vulnerability, and this can be more difficult for those with years of experience as successful educators. The space afforded through

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  65

this project enabled everyone to engage in ways that felt safe and supportive for them. Participants reported that the project was a unique learning space that eschewed the usual inherent structures of their other workplaces and provided a model for Professional Learning Networks that are mindful of Indigenous learning principles within professional/research/community spaces.

4.5 Interconnected themes across three campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry hubs Three overarching themes arose from a consideration of the findings across hubs. Firstly, curriculum transformation provided a catalyst for changing practice, and pushing boundaries of practice through meaningful and ongoing relationships. Next, regular meetings of Professional Learning Networks, created through the project, enabled the informal emergence of collaboration and created spaces for authentic learning among participants, with resultant strong local and provincial networks forming. In addition, through boundary crossing – of participants from different educational sectors, of geographical locations, of theoretical positioning and philosophical stance – deeper and richer understandings were achieved, leading to a significant number of confident professionals able to implement curriculum changes and provoke system change within their institutions.

4.5.1 Curriculum as catalyst Throughout the interviews with participants in each of the PLN hubs, a dominant pattern emerged identifying the renewed curriculum as a catalyst for professional learning and educational change. This external factor, the new BC curriculum,2 impacted all the members in the hubs, including administrators, Ministry representatives, teacher candidates, teacher educators, and experienced teachers, in significant ways. Because members of the Ministry of Education were present at the hub meetings, deeper insights into new curricular directions were possible; as one participant commented: “We get the opportunity to hear about the Ministry directions and vision, looking at draft materials, responding to those, but then the next stage is how people take it and interpret it, and apply it to their particular situation, see different ways that they’re exploring things.” The province’s shift to a competency-based curriculum created support and opportunity for some teachers whose practices were innovative and inquiryfocused, but also caused disequilibrium for other teachers as they sought to understand why and how planning, teaching, assessment and reporting needed to change. Through hub meeting conversations, everyone became aware that change was sometimes not as quick as they would like, recognizing that “I want to see it succeed, but I need to be patient, to see that, how it’s going to succeed and the path of its success is going to be different from district to district.” As well as change taking place differently in districts, it was also seen differently from teacher to teacher. Those willing to embrace new understandings were supported through the new

66  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

curriculum, as a beginning teacher noted: “The redesigned curriculum validates my ability to be flexible with a wide variety of students, and what I mean by that is that when I go into a new classroom I know to put time into letting them know who I am, because I know that’s a big part of how effective teaching is going to happen through the new curriculum, and it allows me to keep an open mind as far as whatever the students come back at me with.” However, the new curriculum also enabled educators to adopt change more slowly, providing time to consider why and how change would likely happen for them. Cross-hub exchanges validated educators’ approaches to change and to the diverse ways in which they were implementing the new curriculum. The hubs acted as unique liminal spaces where educators with diverse approaches came together to engage in dialogue, share examples of practice inspired by this change in curriculum, and provide support for each other. Recognizing that change is difficult, particularly in the magnitude described by the new BC curriculum (BC Ministry of Education, 2013–2014), participants in the 3 Campus hub meetings offered encouragement and acknowledgement to each other. Members of the hubs were focused on increasing their students’ engagement in learning through approaches such as universal design for learning, inquiry-based teaching, passionbased learning, service learning, integrating Indigenous ways of knowing, community partnerships/mentorship, and place-conscious pedagogies, causing them to question and recast curriculum, teaching and learning as situated, collaborative and co-constructed. The new curriculum instilled excitement and enthusiasm in many teachers who had already been innovating their practices, and enabled new teachers to “see what the curriculum is capable of, because being in the classroom you don’t know what it looks like day-to-day. And, in the hub meetings you also get to see the passion in people’s faces when they’re talking about what they’re doing.” Some of the issues that are particularly challenging in implementation of a competency-based curriculum involve the need for educators to shift their conceptions of ‘learning’ in today’s complex world, to consider assessment that involves students and values the process of learning, inquiry-based approaches, and student interest driving their projects. As a PLN hub member commented, “These new ideas about education are so directly tied to student engagement – to be flexible, to open the doors to a whole new array of educational opportunities can’t help but increase student engagement, because there’s more openness into how the students approach the content of a course.” However, he continued, “The structure of school maybe doesn’t fit this new curriculum well, or the structure we think of schools having. So that’s why I like the 3 Campus project: we see so many examples of different structures taking place at school, or people playing with structures that already exist.” In the PLN 3 Campus hub meetings, participants were able to share examples of how they were shifting their engagement with the curriculum and with their students in diverse locations:“I was in a class recently where they were using the last three weeks of class to develop an inquiry project, on a topic of their own choosing, to be presented in a method of their own choosing. There were students working on speeches, interviews, animations, chapters from books that they wanted to write,

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  67

instruction manuals for how to write other pieces, it was fascinating.” During the hub meetings, individuals provided encouragement and support for one another, sharing new ideas they were implementing about assessment or integration of curriculum – teachers across regions recognized each other for the encouragement and suggestions they gained during the meetings, and found new projects through which to connect. A teacher educator shared her observation, “I think there’s always a comfort in hearing that other people are struggling and trying and experimenting and it’s a good forum, because it’s a situation where everybody is an expert in something, and everybody is also a learner. So, it doesn’t feel like we’re coming together to hear from someone how to do something, but we’re learning, from a Ministry perspective these are the things we’re thinking about, but it’s going to look different in different places.” The diversity of educators involved in the 3 Campus PLNs and the pedagogical approaches explored in the meetings served to illustrate to hub members that there are many ways to take up competency-based teaching and learning; the conversations affirmed choices that they made and spurred exploration of alternative approaches in teachers’ efforts to engage students in more personalized and self-directed learning. The province’s curriculum redesign provided the catalyst for hub members to come together across geographic and pedagogical spaces and to welcome all interested educators, with often conflicting beliefs about and understandings of curriculum, teaching and learning, through dialogue and explorations related to their practice. These participants reported learning from and with one another, developing methods and approaches that encouraged students’ investigations of big ideas, key disciplinary concepts and the development of curricular competencies and 21st-century competencies. Findings suggest that the 3 Campus hub interactions created opportunities for experts to position themselves as learners, novices to share their expertise and all members to inquire, create and share examples of implementation that brought the renewed curriculum to life.

4.5.2 Informal collaboration creates strong networks The ‘curriculum moment’ that British Columbia is in as a result of the BC Ed Plan – redesigned curriculum, revised assessment and reporting guidelines – has thrust educators from their various positions into a shared alternative learning space. Our findings indicate that these learning spaces have created a sense that ‘we are all learners’ borne of curiosity and a willingness to be vulnerable in the face of uncertainty. A key outcome of the creation of these alternative spaces and this openness to change is the desire of educators to connect with each other. This desire to connect allowed multiple and interconnected networks to form across all regions involved in the project. The informal collaborative spaces of collective action and collective theorizing that were afforded by the gatherings allowed for new alliances to emerge and new relationships to grow. Diverse educators felt valued; a space of belonging allowed for relationships to develop. One experienced teacher spoke of the

68  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

connections between belonging and critical, collaborative exploration. In his interview he explained: I think that belonging piece was huge for me, always. And then to be challenged, I love that challenge of the question. It refines, it’s that testing of ideas and the practice. And what is it rooted in? How deeply is it rooted? Is that just something we’ve fallen into, or are we still true to that idea of cocreating something that works as an ecology for the people involved in the community school, because we’re getting people asking questions from all these different personal settings and ideas, mindsets that counter what we’re doing, or are opposite. Everyone attending, including teacher candidates, contributed to the conversation, and felt they had something to offer. Many of the participants commented on the sense of community that developed and how this enabled follow-up conversations across schools and districts due to the relationships they had formed at the meetings. A teacher educator from the UBCO Hub noted, “I was able to make connections with the different people, to the point where now when I see them, there’s a familiarity and a relationship that has been developed that expands beyond my local community of professionals.” It was evident that educators from across sites were able to take away new ideas, approaches and structures to consider and explore based on what was shared in the community, and that genuine support was offered and received during and between meetings. As one participant stated, “I think the biggest way this work supported my own learning was just the collaborative experience.” True collaboration is a significant challenge in a profession that often positions teachers as the individual ‘knowers’ working in classrooms alongside each other, but not necessarily ‘together’. The collaboration that was enacted in this project was multi-layered – within classrooms, across classrooms, across geographic regions and across institutions.The often informal nature of the collaborative spaces invited, rather than dictated, new ways of working together. One experienced teacher offered how participating in the PLN helped to both affirm her innovate pedagogy and find a community that honored diversity in teachers and teaching approaches: Even though the room’s full of people, for me it’s psychologically and spiritually calming. You feel like there’s more people that you’re working with, instead of feeling as an outlier. Which I’ve always felt. Not just with this, all my work, all the time. Participants across hubs expressed a sense that they were allies in educational transformation, which in turn gave educators confidence to continue with their curriculum implementation work. All sites experienced multiple instances of everexpanding and deepening connections among educators across roles and regions. These connections have resulted in new collaborations between regions. A consistent observation within and across hubs is the powerful sense of community that

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  69

has formed as educators inquire together and share developing insights through face-to-face cross-hub gatherings and continued work in local hubs. As another participant asserted, “Collaboration will always be a part of my practice now.”

4.5.3 Boundary crossing Throughout this work, it became apparent that the transcendence of traditional structures and boundaries enabled rich discussion and expanded understandings. Members were drawn to and valued the PLN’s dialogic approach to professional learning. An experienced secondary teacher noted the benefit of the PLN’s collaborative inquiry approach which welcomed university, government, and school district-based personnel, “[it gets you] outside of yourself, building bridges. Having conversations with a [Deputy Minister of Education], administrators, teacher candidates, academics from totally different places, it either affirms or challenges. Both of those are important for my practice and what we do.” The PLN challenged more individualistic and linear approaches to professional development. Educators working across sectors and roles realized the value of sharing diverse perspectives that included novice views as well as voices of experience to re-imagine 21st-century education that supports the needs of current and future learners. An elementary teacher candidate spoke of how the PLN offered him: access to people from [university-based researcher] to people from all stages. We’ve got [a middle years teacher], who is you know, kind of pioneering her own philosophy of teaching in the school. I’ve got [first year teachers] who are one or two steps ahead of me on the journey and experiencing some of the same things, but you know, there’s more of a proximity in the journey. I’ve got my peers, and just having access to all those people, hearing their perspectives, hearing their ideas, was exciting and nourishing and it gives me an opportunity to find community. One experienced secondary teacher drove two hours from her rural school to attend the monthly PLN meetings. She described how the diverse backgrounds and roles of PLN participants mutually informed and empowered educators. Knowledge and change processes became less proprietary: I think it is having all those different levels of people … it’s also nice to hear that [shifts in curriculum and teaching practice are] supported by theory from the university professors. It’s nice to know sometimes that you’re on the right track, and there’s research to support that. And then to have the Ministry, it adds that second level of authority, there’s that third partner on board, and everybody’s working toward the same thing. Many teachers spoke of how the PLN hub meetings reduced the isolation they felt in their own schools – and that the PLN helped them to find energy for

70  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

transforming and renewing their practice. One elementary teacher explained that in her school “people feel like they need to know everything, and I think with this, it’s going to be a lot of trial and error, and working together … and so, I think that it was really nice to be among those like-minded people who were exploring it.” Another teacher noted that: It’s just so reassuring to hear that everyone is facing the same challenges … everyone feels a little bit nervous about exploring [the new curriculum]. So it’s reassuring to hear what some of their experiences have been, and new things that they have tried, because then it gets you excited about how you can then try something similar in your own classroom. While the PLN broke down boundaries across schools within each regional hub, three yearly cross-hub meetings also helped to connect educators provincially. One teacher noted: I realized that [our] learning community is so much larger. You just get so locked in your classroom and your school that you forget that there’s so much more.To hear the different perspectives and types of learning across the province was really eye-opening and exciting. A teacher educator elaborated: I have gained an appreciation of how important it is to understand a context … not as much be like another setting, but to really understand one’s own context and build on the resources and on the strengths of the situation that you’re in. Because all three different campuses are articulating similar goals and similar visions but they all look quite different, based on the resources and the strengths within their setting, in their context. It was lovely to speak with other instructors and personnel from school districts because the whole point of it was to hear the new curriculum articulated through different perspectives from different parts of the province. Additionally, disciplinary boundaries were crossed as educators from traditionally separate areas shared ideas connecting diverse ‘subject’ areas such as mathematics, art, electronics, social studies, science, English, etc. Collaborative inquiry within these PLNs enabled diverse educators to create new synergies and new interdisciplinary approaches. For example, one of our first year teachers explained her interdisciplinary collaboration with a more experienced secondary teacher in the PLN to design a Math and social justice-based provocation: That particular provocation came about after one of our meetings. She said to me,‘You know, we’re struggling with the math program this year, I really want to start doing math provocations, so that it fits in with our [interdisciplinary

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  71

inquiry approach], and you’re the first person that I thought of.’ That was all based on relationship, and those relationships did come from being learners together. I’ve built relationships with [district helping teacher in PLN] because of this, I’ve built relationships with [secondary Math/Science teacher in another district] because of this, like there’s just so many people that I know because of the group that we have … So the idea was—they were to pretend as though it was in the future, and there was either an epidemic, or a natural disaster, or a social justice issue like, a genocide, or a war.When we set up that project, there was always, ‘What is the big idea for this project? What are the competencies that are covered from grade 7 to 9—the curricular competencies, built completely around the new curriculum. The reciprocity of learning enabled all participants to gain confidence and enthusiasm for reimagining ways to implement curriculum changes, sparking renewed energy (catalytic affiliation) to continue working for improving educational conditions for all. The non-hierarchical approach to sharing enabled novice teachers and teacher candidates to participate and contribute, and also to take the lead in imagining educational transformations, encouraging senior educators to continue their innovative practices and take bigger risks. A district leader noted: It’s a real delight to work with [PLN novice teachers], because they’re ready and they’re eager and they have questions. It helps to solidify and to get a deeper understanding of our own work through really scrutinizing our own practice together with the teacher candidates which helps to give us all a deeper understanding about why we’re doing what we’re doing. Novice educators were more comfortable with uses of technology, flipped classroom approaches and Universal Design for Learning, for example, and did not have to eschew traditional practices as they collaborated and implemented learner-­centered personalized approaches for learning, assessment, and teaching. Their thinking was more directly informed by Indigenous principles of learning and they were highly attuned to the diversity of their students’ interests and needs. Early-career teachers influenced novice teachers, demonstrating that it was possible to take up innovative practices and approaches. A novice teacher shared: Honestly it felt like the power dynamic was completely stripped away and everyone was on a level playing field. Which is one of the reasons why I love going back to teacher candidates and being a mentor, and giving feedback. Because I don’t feel superior, I just feel like it’s like, ‘Yeah I’ve been through this. Clearly, these new educators are able and willing to lead the way in new curriculum implementation.

72  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

Through the disruption of formal and informal hierarchies within and across education settings, a different way of understanding mentorship – lateral mentoring – emerged, building on strong positive and trusting relationships that enabled all voices to be heard and valued. Such boundary-crossing illustrations, considering geographic, interdisciplinary, institutional, and experience-related examples, strengthened PLN members’ professional learning and innovative exploration of new curricula.

4.6 Implications Professional Learning Networks such as those described in this chapter create many important opportunities for educators to enhance and deepen their professional knowledge and skills. In particular, the informal learning opportunities offered through PLNs, the sense of belonging to a professional community, and the support offered to/by members of the PLN arose as significant features. British Columbia’s Three Campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry Networks provide opportunities for knowledge generation and sharing between schools, school districts, teacher education programs, researchers and the Ministry of Education. The importance of creating opportunities for informal learning was evident in hub meetings and in the cross-hub encounters. While an agenda provided structure to the meetings, the most powerful learning emerged through informal exchanges – before, during, and after the meetings. Educators looked forward to arriving at the meetings to greet each other and share stories, to check in with colleagues, and to feel the emotions that come with belonging. Meeting agendas were redesigned as new ideas emerged. People came as individuals and quickly connected as members of a networked community who all had strong commitments to learning and supporting student learning, finding support, engaging in conversation, and generating new ideas. Local PLNs were enriched by connecting across geographic hubs – illustrating the potential of regional PLNs to experience catalytic affiliation – a sense of trust, belonging and support – through cross-PLN sharing. Examples of innovative practice and new school structures that align with BC’s redesigned 21st-century competency-based curriculum were shared at the school, geographic region, and provincial levels, both documenting innovation and provoking diverse and creative approaches to teaching and learning. These PLNs enabled educators to direct their own professional development and spurred practice change through collaborative inquiry approaches. One novice teacher noted, “Talking to teachers who have been in it for 20, 30 years, who are a part of our group, I’m realizing that 20, 30 years down the road, I will still be questioning what I’m doing in a positive way.” Finally, the nested nature of the PLNs facilitated partnership work across a variety of stakeholders. Reciprocal learning occurred across K-12, teacher education and government. Analyses of data from BC’s Three Campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry Networks suggest that the following factors need to be in place for systematic change that taps diverse educators’ interest and engagement in professional learning

Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry  73

and broader educational change: (1) opportunities to explore reasons for educational transformation (the why); (2) creation of conditions that enable new understandings to emerge through inquiry approaches, multi-school and multi-district participation, and cross-constituent group collaboration (the how and who); and (3) parallel and intersecting efforts by teacher education programs to renew and transform their curriculum, practices, structures and pedagogical approaches (the what). Findings from this PLN study also have implications for system-wide transformation within education jurisdictions – implications which are generally consistent with system change principles outlined by OECD (2013). These findings suggest the following big ideas: ••

••

••

••

When used thoughtfully by PLNs, curriculum that is specifically designed for high quality student engagement, student learning, and teacher autonomy can act as a catalyst for transformation within and across schools. PLN leaders must attend to and create conditions that enable new models of teaching and learning to be explored through ongoing collaborative professional learning. Establishing and strengthening collaborative learning networks across classrooms, schools, districts, faculties, and government results in educators seeing themselves as learners and being willing to engage in change processes. Boundary crossing is key in system change. This involves educators of all kinds engaging together in transformative changes that shift programs, policies, and practices. This can result in flattened hierarchies, the democratization of power structures, the courage to try new things, and the willingness to see oneself as both teacher and learner regardless of role and areas of expertise. Documenting and publically sharing stories of change enables system change. For example, grassroots video of transformation-in-action that is shared publically can support and inspire other educators to take courageous steps toward shifting their practice.

Understanding and taking collaborative action based on the above implications is currently enabling participants within these PLNs to better support student learning outcomes by enhancing field support for system-based education transformation.

Notes 1 See: www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed/principles_of_learning.pdf 2 https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/

References Atwell, N. (2015). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading and adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. British Columbia Ministry of Education (2013–2014). Transforming curriculum and instruction. Retrevied May 2016 from: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/.

74  Schnellert, Fisher and Sanford

Butler, D. L., L. Schnellert and K. MacNeil (2015). Collaborative inquiry and distributed agency in educational change: A case study of a multi-level community of inquiry. Journal of Educational Change, 16(1), 1–26. Cochran-Smith, M. and S. Lytle (2009). Inquiry as stance. New York: Teachers College Press. Cook-Sather, A. and Z. Alter (2011). What is and what can be: How a liminal position can change learning and teaching in higher education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42, 37–53. Darling-Hammond, L., P. Brigid Barron, D. Pearson, A. Schoenfeld, E. Stage, T. Zimmerman, G. Cervetti and J. Tilson (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, B., and D. Sumara (2012). Fitting teacher education in/to/for an increasingly complex world. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(1), 30–40. Dumont, H., D. Istance and F. Benavides (Eds) (2010). The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. First Nations Education Steering Committee (2008). Teacher resource guide: English 12 First Peoples. West Vancouver, British Columbia. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from www.fnesc. ca/efp/Attachments/efp12/EFP%2012%20TRG%20April%2016%202008%20ALL.pdf. Gee, J. and E. Hayes (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. London: Routledge. Leander, K., N. Phillips and K.Taylor (2010).The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329–394. Lysaker, J. and S. Furuness (2011). Space for transformational relational, dialogic pedagogy. Journal of Transformative Education, 9(3), 183–197. McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage Publications. OECD (2013). Innovative learning environments, Educational research and innovation, OECD Publishing. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264 203488-en. Sanford, K. and C. McGregor (2013). Quality teaching and learning report: Seeding and supporting innovations in learning. Research report commissioned by the British Columbia Ministry of Education. Sanford, K., L.Williams,T. Hopper and C. McGregor (2012). Decolonizing teacher education: Indigenous principles informing teacher education. In Education, 18(2), 40–79. Retrieved May 29, 2016 from www.ineducation.ca/. Sanford, K., T. Hopper and L. Starr (2015). Transforming teacher education thinking: Complexity and relational ways of knowing. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 12(2), 26–48. Sanford, K., L. Starr and K. Mimick (2015). New approaches to cross-context teacher education. In Thomas, L., and Hirschcorn, M. (Eds), Change and progress in Canadian teacher education: Research on recent innovations in teacher preparation in Canada. Retreived May 29, 2016 from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3yy1OPnpomCdVFhal9KaU1KRUk/view. Schnellert, L. and D. Kozak (2016, May). Literacies in action: In situ teacher education. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Calgary, AB. Schnellert, L., D. Kozak and S. Moore (2015). Professional development that positions teachers as inquirers and possibilizers. LEARNing Landscapes, 9(1), 217–236. Wilson, S. (2008) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Black Point, NS, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

5 FROM DATA TO LEARNING A data team Professional Learning Network Kim Schildkamp, Jaana Nehez and Ulf Blossing

5.1 Introduction This chapter focuses on a data team as a Professional Learning Network (PLN). Data teams are teams of teachers and school leaders who collaboratively use data to solve a specific educational problem in their school. The focus is on school improvement (i.e., solving a specific educational problem) and professional development in data use. We will first explain the concept of data use or data-based decision making (5.2). Next, we will describe the specific data team intervention (5.3). In this chapter, we will focus on one specific data team from Sweden, and we will explain how this team went through all the steps of the data team intervention (5.3), as seen through the lens of the data team coach of this team. Next, we will focus on the factors that can enable or hinder the work of a data team (5.4). Furthermore, we will discuss the outcomes of data teams (5.5). This chapter will end with a conclusion and discussion section (5.6), discussing the main takeaways from this chapter for data teams specifically, and for PLNs in general.

5.2 Data-based decision making in education How can we improve English language achievement in our school? How can we increase the mathematics skills of our students? How can we promote the social emotional well-being of our students? Schools these days are faced with a continuous stream of questions and challenges. In order to meet these challenges and improve education for all students, the use of data in school improvement processes is crucial. Examples of data include student achievement results, student background information, surveys, and classroom observations. Data-based decision making pertains to using these systematically collected quantitative and/or qualitative data to base decisions on. Schildkamp and Kuiper (2010: 482) define data-based decision

76  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

making (or data use for short) as “systematically analyzing existing data sources within the school, applying the outcomes of analyses in order to innovate teaching, curricula, and school performance, and, implementing (i.e., genuine improvement actions) and evaluating these innovations.” Emerging evidence shows that under certain conditions, using data as part of the decision-making process by teachers and school leaders can contribute to improvements in student achievement (Carlson et al., 2014; Poortman & Schildkamp, 2016; Van Geel et al., 2016). However, in most schools using data for school improvement actions is not common practice. Using data in a school improvement process requires data collection, analysis, interpretation, forming conclusions and developing and implementing improvement actions based on data (e.g., adjusting instruction to the needs of the students). Several studies show that often school leaders and teachers lack the necessary knowledge and skills needed to use data (e.g., Earl & Katz, 2006; Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006; Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). To address this need, several professional development programs have been developed supporting schools in the use of data (e.g., Boudett et al., 2005; Lai et al., 2014; Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). Although there are many data use professional development programs available, most of these programs have not been scientifically investigated over an extended period of time. In this chapter, we focus on a specific data use professional development program, which has been implemented in the Netherlands, Sweden, England, and Belgium, and has been studied over an extended period. Research results show that this particular program has led to professional development (Ebbeler et al., 2016, 2017) and school improvement in terms of increased student achievement (Poortman & Schildkamp, 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2016a).

5.3 A data team intervention A data team can broadly be described as a PLN, as defined in Chapter 1 as a group who engages in collaborative learning with people from outside of their everyday community of practice with the goal of improving teaching and learning. In a data team, teachers and school leaders, usually from the same school but from different groups or departments (e.g., mathematics teachers, school leaders, school staff from different teams), focus on collaborative learning by sharing experiences and critical reflections in order to improve goal fulfillment in their own school (see Marsh et al., 2015; Nelson et al., 2008). Moreover, data teams are connected to a wider PLN, as they may also interact with and contact data teams from other schools. Working in a PLN, such as a data team, can lead to individual as well as collective capacity building (Stoll et al., 2006), and can improve teaching practice and student achievement (Vescio et al., 2008). The data team intervention focuses on professional development of teachers and school leaders in the use of data, with the ultimate goal of school improvement (i.e., solving the educational problem schools are experiencing by using data). This may relate to, for example, improving mathematics achievement of students (Poortman

From data to learning  77

& Schildkamp, 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2016a; Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). Data teams consist of teachers (four to six) and school leaders (one to two), who collaboratively work on solving a specific educational problem in their school(s) (e.g., low English language achievement) by using data.The teams are supported by an extensive manual, work sheets, and an external coach. Data teams work according to an iterative and cyclic procedure. The data team members go back and forward between the following eight steps (see also Figure 5.1): 1 Problem definition: The current situation and the desired situation in the form of a concrete and measurable goal. 2 Hypotheses: Possible causes of the problem. 3 Data collection: Collect the data necessary to investigate the possible causes. 4 Data quality check: How valid and reliable are the collected data? 5 Data analysis: The data are analyzed to investigate the hypothesis. 6 Interpreting the data and drawing conclusions: The team decides whether they can accept the hypothesis, or that they need to reject the hypothesis, and need to go back to step 2.

FIGURE 5.1 

The data team intervention (Schildkamp & Ehren, 2013: 56).

78  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

7 Developing and implementing improvement measures based on data: If the hypothesis is accepted, the team develops an action plan, and implements this action plan. 8 Evaluation: The team evaluates the data team process, and evaluates if they have reached the goal as set out in step 1.

5.3.1 The process of a data team from Sweden As noted above, the data team intervention has been implemented in different countries. In this chapter, we will focus on a data team in Sweden that is also part of a PLN of data teams from different schools in a municipality (i.e., was also part of a larger network of data teams in the region). The project in Sweden started with a kick-off meeting for all the 13 data teams from different schools and municipalities, who all gathered at the regional office, together with the coaches from the different municipalities. At this meeting, the participants were introduced to the data team intervention, the eight steps were explained, and research results were shared. Also, all the teams started working on the first step of the intervention, which they continued at the next meeting in their own school. The data team described in this chapter consisted of a teacher team (seven teachers) at lower level of compulsory school, one special education teacher, and the principal of the school. For the first step of the data team intervention a problem is defined, and a purpose is established. This is called problem definition: The team decides on which educational problem and goals they want to focus their efforts. During a brainstorming, several problems were discussed in our case, for example, disrespect between students, low results on the national mathematics test in the third grade, and lack of collective learning between teachers.The team decided to start with the low mathematics test results, since they had no clue why the results were so low, or what to do about it. At this point, the special education teacher was asked to join the data team. Together they found out that they indeed had a problem. Only 26% of all students in grade 3 passed the mathematics test, which was the lowest result of all schools in the municipality. The team examined the results from the three most recent years and found that the results had been low during the whole period. Based on this, the team set up goals for the next three years. The goal for the first year was that at least 75% of the students should pass the test. In step 2, the team formulates hypotheses on what might cause the problem. Once again, the team started brainstorming, and ended up with a long list of possible hypotheses. The team reflected upon the hypotheses to shorten the list. One presumption was that the assessment criteria used to judge the test were too strict, but since all schools had the same criteria, they should have the same problem, which was not the case. Another more likely hypothesis was a language issue. The school had a large number of students whose mother tongue was not Swedish. The team thought that the students did not understand the instructions in the test.They defined the following hypothesis: A majority of the students failing the mathematics test has problems with reading comprehension.

From data to learning  79

Next, data are collected. This is step 3 of the data team intervention. The team collects data to test the hypotheses from step 2. For this step, several types of data can be collected (e.g., assessment data, inspection reports, and examination results), both quantitative as well as qualitative data.To test the hypothesis, the team used the mathematics tests from the previous year as data.The archived tests were scrutinized. Then, the collected data need to be analyzed. In the data team, this starts with step 4, the data quality check. Are the collected data reliable and valid? The team planned to start with the mathematics tests from the previous year. If the hypothesis seemed to be correct based on those tests, the team should also check the tests from two more years to ensure reliability. Correspondingly, the team also collected the mathematics tests from the three most recent years. The tests gave insight in the given tasks and the students’ calculations and reasoning. The data were also valid; they were relevant in relation to what the team aimed to investigate. Next, in step 5, the data are analyzed. This can range from simple data analyses (e.g., descriptive analyses) to more sophisticated analyses (e.g., t-tests and Chi Square tests). One of the teachers in the team read all the mathematics tests from the year before, systematically made notes in an observation protocol about how students managed written tasks compared to tasks that only consisted of numbers, and how many of those who had failed actually were students with Swedish as their second language. The following step, step 6, is data interpretation.The team interprets the data and forms conclusions. If hypotheses turn out to be false, new hypotheses need to be investigated (back to step 2). If the hypotheses are correct, the team draws conclusions based on the collected data. When the notes and observation protocols were presented to the rest of the team, it became clear that the hypothesis had to be rejected. A lack of reading comprehension did not cause the low results. Students with Swedish as their mother tongue had failed in the same degree as students who had Swedish as their second or third language.The members of the team were surprised. They felt they had to compare their students’ test results with results in socially comparable schools in the municipality. However, this showed that some of these schools had good results, indicating that the social status of the population was not the cause of the problem either. At this point, the members of the data team were confused; they had no clue why the national test results in grade 3 were so low at their school.They formulated a research question to investigate it (step 2): “What are the mathematics tasks that the students fail on and how did we teach these tasks?”The team turned to the data archive again to use the tests from the last three years (step 3), which had already been deemed to be of sufficient quality (step 4). In pairs they scrutinized the tests (step 5). To be able to compare their findings they had to agree upon what to focus, for example, only students who failed the test or tasks students failed on, and how they should document the results of their analysis. Because of their work, the members of the data team were able to identify the difficulties the students had, and then were able to relate these patterns to their own teaching. They noticed that calculating what they themselves considered simple

80  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

additions and subtractions was found to be challenging for students. The results of their analysis showed that 46% of the students failed adding more than two terms, for example, 17+54+76. Subtraction was even more challenging, especially subtraction with several numbers. The results also showed that 68% failed calculating subtractions such as 67−38, 65% failed calculating subtractions such as 188-79, and 83% failed calculating subtractions such as 200−73. The team formulated the following conclusion (step 6 ): The low national test results in grade 3 are caused by insufficient teaching strategies to train students’ strategies for counting, especially when adding more than two terms and when subtracting. The next step is developing an action plan based on the collected data. This is step 7 of the data team intervention: Developing and implementing improvement measures.The team made plans for what to do to improve their teaching.The team analyzed the methods the students used to calculate, to be able to understand how they as teachers could help them better. The educational material and textbooks that were used were investigated in order to understand what could help the students and what might confuse them, in relation to their test results. Teachers in the school’s mathematics team were asked for inspiration. A plan for improvement, based on what the teachers have already successfully managed, what they should do more of, less of, and what they should start doing and stop doing, was made, and planned actions were taken. At this point, as we write this chapter, the teachers are still improving their teaching strategies. Compared to before, they are working more with concrete material and discussing mathematics with the students in small groups. They have also focused on one method, since they noticed that students got confused when the teachers showed several different methods for counting and subtracting. The improvement actions are evaluated in step 8: Are the actions effective? Are the goals met? Is the problem solved? To evaluate the actions, new data need to be collected. This process continues until the purpose is met. When this happens the team can continue with a new problem and therefore start with a new ‘step 1’. So far, a new class three has taken the national test in mathematics and the team has analyzed the results. The goal for the first year was that at least 75% of the students should pass the test; the results of the analysis showed that 83% passed the test. The team reached their goal for the first year. For the second year, the goal is at least 85% so there is still some room for improvement.

5.4 Key factors that influence the work of data teams Two studies have been conducted focusing on the factors enabling and hindering the work of data teams, one in the Netherlands (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015), and one in Sweden (Schildkamp et al., 2016b). Similar factors seem to influence the work of data teams in both the Netherlands and Sweden. These concern data characteristics, school organizational characteristics, user and team characteristics, and context characteristics. In this section, these factors will be discussed, as well as how these factors influenced the Swedish data team described in this chapter.

From data to learning  81

5.4.1 Data characteristics influencing the work of data teams Several data characteristics, such as availability of data, and access to relevant, high quality data, can enable the work of data teams. Each characteristic can become either an enabler or a barrier, depending on the context. For example, data teams need access to data, but if too many data are collected, then data team members are ‘drowning in data’ and may experience data overload (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2016b). One of the data characteristics that influenced the work of the Swedish data team was the access to the national mathematics tests.Without the tests as a primary data source, the team would not have been able to categorize what kind of tasks were challenging for the students, and how they became a challenge in relation to the students’ calculations. At first, analyzing more than 100 tests seemed like an overwhelming task, but this was made easier once the team members clarified what to look for and how to do this.

5.4.2 User and team characteristics influencing the work of data teams Several user and team characteristics can influence the work of data teams. Important enablers are: knowledge and skills with regard to how to use data (i.e., data literacy), pedagogical content knowledge, a positive attitude towards the use of data (e.g., finding it important to use data to improve education), working on a shared problem and goals, collaboration within the team and with colleagues outside the team, the team composition (some heterogeneity), and commitment to participate in the team (e.g., showing up for the meetings) (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2016b). The collective development of a data analysis tool was a user and team characteristic that enabled the work of the Swedish team. At first, they felt discouraged to have to dig into the tests to find their answers, but when they came up with a process on how to analyze the results, they started to realize that the tests were a treasure trove of information. The team members got more and more enthusiastic when seeing patterns with the help of their analysis tools.

5.4.3 School organizational characteristics influencing the work of data teams School organizational characteristics can both enable and hinder the work of data teams. For example, the school leader may facilitate members by providing time as well as through encouraging and motivating team members, by making the goal and importance of the data team clear, and by distributing leadership. In addition, a clear vision on how the data team fits in the daily lives of school staff is important (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2016b).

82  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

School organizational characteristics that influenced the work of the Swedish data team were the principal’s participation in the data team, distributed leadership, and working with a new improvement process. Firstly, what enabled the team was that the principal listened to the teachers’ needs, reminded them about available time, and helped the team to avoid competing demands. Some assignments were possible to do as preparations before the meetings in the data team, but sometimes the work had to be done during those meetings; they had to have realistic expectations of their work. When the team needed more time, the principal tried to give them that. In this way, the principal created conditions for the team to carry on. Distributed leadership also enabled the work of the team. The principal managed to keep a balance between being the head and being a member of the group. She let the teachers lead the meetings, and expected them to do that, which enabled ownership of the data team work among the teachers, and made them take responsibility of the process. There were also characteristics that hindered the work of the data team.The fact that the teacher team, after one year, got involved in a new improvement project together with the other teachers at the school, made it difficult for them to find time to work with the data team process. Therefore, the planning of the principal did not only have a positive impact on the work of the data team.

5.4.4 Context characteristics influencing the work of data teams Context characteristics influence the work of data teams. In the Netherlands, data teams receive support from a coach from the university, and this research-practice partnership enables the work of data teams (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). In Sweden, the municipality and/or regional office supported the data teams. The municipality made sure that data was available, which influenced the problems the teams decided to focus on. Moreover, the municipality and/or regional office supported all the teams by providing them with a data coach, by organizing meetings for coaches to reflect on their work, by organizing a data analysis course for the data teams, and by organizing a knowledge-sharing data team conference (Schildkamp et al., 2016b). In that sense, not only did the individual data teams function as PLNs within their schools, but they were also part of a larger PLN, consisting of all the data teams, the coaches and the manager from the regional office. In addition, both in the Netherlands and in Sweden, it was found that the inspectorate influenced the work of the data teams. Pressure by the inspectorate can form an enabling factor for data teams because it can make everyone acknowledge that an urgent problem exists that needs to be solved. However, too much or too little pressure from organizations such as the inspectorate can work counterproductively (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; Schildkamp et al., 2016b). Context characteristics such as support from the data coach and the data team conference, organized by the regional office, enabled the work of the Swedish data team. The coach helped the team to focus, but also to apply a brake in the procedure. Without this, the team would have started to improve the students’ reading

From data to learning  83

comprehension skills without investigating the causes of the problem thoroughly, which would not have helped the students to pass the tests. The sharing of experiences during the data team conference after the first year, when the team had already got involved in a new improvement project, became an opportunity for the team to reflect on their work, since they had to present this to other teams. The preparations for the conference reminded them of their progress, and the conference reminded them what might happen if they did not maintain their focus: the results might drop again. They started to reflect on how they could use the data team model for other problems as well. The coach used this reminder and the reflections as arguments for encouraging the team to commit to the data team intervention, and to spread the work of the data team into the entire school.

5.5 Outcomes of the data team intervention After a first pilot, the data team intervention was initially implemented in ten Dutch secondary education schools. To study the effects of the data team intervention a mixed methods design with a combination of a pretest-posttest and an experimental-control group design was used in the Netherlands (Ebbeler et al., 2016, 2017; Poortman & Schildkamp, 2016). Based on professional development literature (Desimone, 2009; Guskey, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1996), a distinction was made between the following four levels of effects, which was also used in describing the effects of the Swedish team: 1 To what extent are teachers satisfied with the data team intervention? 2 To what extent have teachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes positively changed? 3 To what extent do teachers actually use their improved knowledge and skills to apply the data team intervention? 4 To what extent have student (learning) outcomes in relation to the data team problem improved? This level of effects framework has been very useful in studying the effects of data teams, as these data teams are working at different levels of the educational systems (i.e., different grades, different educational tracks), studying different types of problems (e.g., from school level problems such as retention, to subject level specific problems, such as mathematics achievement), making it difficult to study and compare their results. As PLNs are also likely to work on improving different areas of teaching and learning, using a similar framework may help in studying the effects of PLNs in general.

5.5.1 Outcomes of the data team intervention: Effects at the satisfaction level The results for the teacher satisfaction level (level 1) in the Dutch study showed that data team participants were satisfied to very satisfied about the support and the

84  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

materials related to the data team intervention, although some data team members stated that working in a data team costs a lot of time (Ebbeler et al., 2017). With regard to the satisfaction of the Swedish data team members, they expressed satisfaction about participating in a data team. According to the results of an evaluation questionnaire, the team members were very satisfied about the support from the coach, the composition of the team, and their own progress: “We have a better understanding of our problem.”They were satisfied about the information they got before they started. Some of the members were satisfied with the manual, but others found it hard to follow. To be able to understand the manual they needed the coach: “We need further support from the coach.” When the data team members were asked about the support from the principal, half of them were satisfied and the other half wanted more support. All of them would like to have more time to work with the data team process. They were not satisfied with spreading the data team work in the school. Not all teachers were familiar with the data team work, and the data team way of working had not become a routine within the school. Since the teachers in the data team were those who were directly concerned by the work, they felt no need to spread their work during the process. However, after a year, they realized that local knowledge about data teams and their work with improving the results in mathematics could inspire other teacher teams. If that would happen they thought they would be able to get more time for data analysis in the meeting agendas and learn from other teams. In their work, they had focused on a narrow problem, and they would like to start a dialogue with preschool teachers and teachers in grade 4–6 to develop a common thread and coherent curriculum throughout all the grades in mathematics at their school.

5.5.2 Outcomes of the data team intervention: Effects at the knowledge, skills, and attitude level In the Dutch study, the teachers expressed a positive attitude towards data use. At the level of teacher learning results (level 2), the results showed that data team members scored significantly higher on a data literacy posttest compared to the pretest. Furthermore, results of a data use questionnaire revealed that the gain score for data team schools was significantly higher for the scales related to data use knowledge and skills compared to the results of the control group. The interview results underlined these positive results for attitude, knowledge, and skills (Ebbeler et al., 2017). In the Swedish project, the data team members were asked at the end of the year to summarize their learning. They emphasized the importance of basing improvement work on data. They had experienced “how easy it is to take actions on incorrect hypotheses.” In the beginning of their work, they were a bit skeptical towards the data team process, since it was such an extensive process. Soon the skepticism changed into engagement, even in times when work load was heavy. They learned to appreciate that data analysis and data-based school improvement takes time. The

From data to learning  85

team members expressed that they had learned a lot about themselves: “most of us often choose quick solutions if we are not stopped by a colleague or a coach.”

5.5.3 Outcomes of the data team intervention: Effects at the use of knowledge and skills level The scores at the level of teacher use of knowledge and skills (level 3) were higher in Dutch data team schools on the posttest. However, the results were not significantly higher. This may be due to the fact that the questionnaire was administered at school level and not at the data team level. These results were verified by the interviews. Some, but not all respondents mentioned using data to improve their practice (Ebbeler et al., 2016). In terms of the application of knowledge and skills in the Swedish data team, in the evaluation questionnaire all the teachers in the team emphasized that the data team intervention and team members joint work have made them reflect deeper, and they want to be able to keep on doing that, which requires certain conditions. They would like to engage the other mathematics teachers at the school to ensure, for example, that teachers in grade 4 understand the teaching in grade 3, and can build their teaching on that (i.e., develop a coherent mathematics curriculum). During the data team conference the participants of the team also expressed ideas about how they could use the data-team model for other problems, for example, for a presumed problem concerning the admission of new arrivals in school.

5.5.4 Outcomes of the data team intervention: Effects at the learning outcome level A majority of Dutch teams found the causes for their problem and implemented measures to improve student achievement (level 4). For example, a team studying the problem of low English final examination results changed their instruction based on assessment data and interviews with students, which led to a significant increase in their final examination results (Poortman & Schildkamp, 2016; Schildkamp et al., 2016a). One general effect noticed from the work with data teams in the Swedish municipality was that the annual quality reports from schools with data teams were improved. The reports became more systematic than the previous ones, and contained analyses and not only descriptions of what has been improved since last year. If this will be a lasting outcome for the school, the future will tell. Moreover, with regard to learning outcomes the data team achieved their goal. In 2015, only 26% of all students in grade 3 passed the mathematics test, which was the lowest result in the entire municipality. The goal for 2016 was that at least 75% of the students should pass the test. In 2016, 83% of the pupils in third grade passed the national mathematics test. Student achievement improved substantially.

86  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

5.6 Conclusion and discussion 5.6.1 Functioning of the data team The data team systematically worked through all the eight steps of the cycle and was able to solve their educational problem, low mathematics achievement, by using data. In this PLN, the importance of data use became apparent at the start of the process. The data team initially thought that other schools with the same population had similar achievement problems, but this was not the case. Moreover, the team was convinced that their problem was caused by reading comprehension problems, mainly among the non-native Swedish population. This turned out not to be the case either. If the team had not used data to check their hunches and assumptions, they would have invested a lot of time and effort in improving reading comprehension, which would not have solved their problem. However, it is important not to dismiss these hunches and assumptions either, but to take these seriously and address these often deep-seated beliefs (Timperley et al., 2014). In a data team these assumptions are investigated, and turned into measurable hypotheses (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015), which is the start of an effective school improvement process. In this process, the attitude of participants changes from “the cause of the problem is that students …” to “what can we as teachers do to promote student learning” (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; Timperley et al., 2014). The focus should be on school and teacher improvement as this is key to increasing the learning and achievement of students (Hattie, 2011). Moreover, it is important that school improvement processes with the use of data are not individual endeavors. Collaboration in a PLN is crucial, as data use is also a sense-making process. Sense making involves using preexisting cognitive frameworks to make meaning of the data collected (Weick, 1995), and influence the decisions that are made based on data. Data team members collectively and in interaction make sense of the data by drawing on their preexisting beliefs and practices (Coburn, 2001). In the example covered in this chapter, the team collectively gathered, analyzed, and interpreted the data. For example, they developed an analysis tool to go through the enormous amount of data they had collected, which supported their sense-making process. Furthermore, the team participated in a wider PLN, consisting of the 13 data teams that were supported by the regional office. This network also proved to be very important for the data team described in this chapter. This network provided the data team with a coach, support at the start of the process, and support in the form of a knowledge-sharing conference.The latter turned out to be crucial for the progress and sustainability of the team. Before the conference, the team was busy with the new project at their school.The preparations for the conference reminded them of the importance of using data in a school improvement process.They started to reflect upon how they could use the data team model for other problems as well.

From data to learning  87

5.6.2 Influencing factors and effects Several factors influenced the functioning of the data team. The team had access to the data needed, which, in relation to this chapter, included the results on national mathematics tests.The data were also archived in such a manner that the team could also access data from previous years. Collectively, they developed a data analysis tool and collectively they used data to solve their educational problem. Leadership also enabled the work of the team. The school leader participated in the team, but also made sure that everyone was involved and that decisions were made collectively. Distributed leadership was employed. However, the school leader also hindered the process of the data team to some extent, when the team members were asked to participate in a new school improvement project. With this new project, the school leader no longer prioritized the work of the data team, which almost led to an end of the work of the data team. The fact that the data team participated in a wider across school PLN basically ‘saved’ the team.This is because the team was meeting the other data teams facilitated by the regional office at a local conference, supported by a coach, and had to prepare for this conference; as a result this made them reflect on their work. They realized how far they had come, and how important it was for them to continue. Later when they were still struggling for time, the coach could use the lessons they had learned by preparing for and participating in the data team conference as arguments when encouraging the team to commit to the data team intervention. Stoll (2010) specifically mentions this as one of the advantages of working in an across school network: a school’s PLN can lead to local changes, and this can be enhanced by the ideas and support from the across schools network. The data team members all indicated that because of working in a data team they discovered the importance of using data to improve education. In the data team, they learned how to collect and analyze data, and develop improvement measures based on data. This ultimately resulted in increased student achievement. This is the goal of using data in a school improvement process. The goal is not to use data, but to use data as a tool to improve student learning and achievement.

5.6.3 Lessons learned for PLNs in general Several of the lessons learned from studying the functioning of data teams may also be applicable for the functioning of PLNs in general. In the first chapter of this book (Brown & Poortman, 2017), several conditions for effective PLNs are mentioned. The first condition pertains to the focus on a shared goal or sense of purpose, which was also found to be important for data teams.We would like to add to this, that it can be helpful to focus on an urgent problem of practice that teachers experience in their own context. As stated by Lai and Schildkamp (2016) this helps with capitalizing on teachers’ genuine interest in supporting their students to learn.

88  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

A second condition mentioned by Brown and Poortman (2017) pertains to the importance of collaboration, which also became clear in this chapter. This collaboration does not only pertain to collaboration within the PLN, but also collaboration across schools and PLNs. As stated in this chapter, across school collaboration is not only beneficial with regard to knowledge sharing (in this chapter between data teams), but it can also be crucial for the progress and sustainability of the team. It can remind PLNs of the importance of their work and can lead to a deeper reflection with regard to how to sustain and expand their work. Working together with people from outside your everyday group of colleagues requires a positive attitude, collaboration skills, and commitment. Moreover, collaboration has to involve some sort of knowledge sharing, both within a PLN as well as between PLNs. As stated by Wenger (1998), knowledge sharing refers to the exchange of knowledge, which ensures that all team members are mutually engaged, which can reinforce learning. Thirdly, Brown and Poortman (2017) talk about the importance of reflective professional inquiry, which is also a key aspect of the work of data teams. In this process of reflective professional inquiry, PLNs may benefit from using data and other sources of evidence in their efforts to improve teaching and learning. PLNs who want to engage in improving teaching and learning cannot rely solely on previous experiences and gut instinct. They need access to different types of high quality data to be able to improve teaching and learning. As argued by Brown et al. (in press), we also believe that it is important that PLNs base their decisions on a combination of personal judgment, scientific research evidence, as well as local school data. This combination is more likely to lead to high quality decisions that can improve teaching and learning, because these decisions are informed by local beliefs, values, and preferences (i.e., personal judgment), are grounded in the local context (i.e., local school data), and take into account proven effective practices (i.e., research evidence) (Brown et al., in press). A fourth condition put forward by Brown and Poortman (2017) is leadership, which is also an important condition for the data teams described in this chapter. Any (organizational) change regarding improving teaching and learning in the school requires leadership, even if it is only with regard to school leaders facilitating teachers in time to participate in the PLN. School leaders can also make sure that the work of the PLN is and remains a priority, and is not put aside, because other priorities arise. School leaders can facilitate the PLNs, and make sure that their work continues. Distributed leadership also plays an important role here, as both official school leaders and team leaders and teachers can be important for the PLN. As stated by Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) distributed leadership is about the suite of leadership behaviors focused on school improvement that take place in an organization. A condition not explicitly mentioned by Brown and Poortman (2017), which we would like to add, as a possible influencing condition, is the availability of structures and protocols for the work of PLNs. Improving teaching and learning is a complex process, so PLNs are likely to benefit from some type of structured cyclical

From data to learning  89

approach, as school improvement is a continuous process. Structures and protocols should be provided as a scaffold for teachers to develop their knowledge and skills, for example, in the form of a set procedure (e.g., to analyze data) or in the form of a stepwise process, including manuals and worksheets (Lai & Schildkamp, 2016) as used by the data teams described in this chapter. Furthermore, the data teams described in this chapter were supported by a coach from outside their own organization. This may also be helpful for any type of PLN. As argued by Lai and Schildkamp (2016) teams may benefit from inter-dependence with a range of learning partners. These inter-dependent partners (e.g., researchers, municipalities, other schools) can support teachers in (using data and other sources of evidence for) improving teaching and learning. More and more evidence is emerging with regard to the benefits of these types of partnerships. For example, a study into PLNs involved in using data to improve literacy, supported by a local university, showed that the PLNs were able to improve teaching and learning in their schools consistently and over a long period of time (e.g., Lai et al., 2014; see also Chapter 9). Lai and McNaughton (2013) stress the importance of inter-dependence with regard to these partnerships, as it is important to avoid too much reliance on external experts. Moreover, it is also important to avoid too little dependence on external experts, especially when the teachers lack the knowledge to identify and/or address the problems in their schools and classrooms.

5.6.4 Sustainability of the work of data teams and PLNs An important issue arose with regard to the sustainability of the work of the data team: sustainability with regard to continuing in a data team focused on improving mathematics and perhaps in the future improving other areas and sustainability with regard to transfer of the data team work in the whole school.The team runs the risk of being isolated in the school, and of the data team process not being transferred to the whole school. As also found by Harris and Jones (2010), organizational structures and strong subject boundaries can hinder the process of transfer and building whole school learning networks. This way of working was new to the school and required constant negotiation (e.g., with the school leader for time) and support. At this point, when we are writing this chapter, the team is still in a critical phase, trying to manage two improvement processes at the same time. To increase the chances of sustainability, the participation of the data team in the across school network may help in the future. Knowledge sharing with other data teams made the team realize how important it is to establish the data team work in the whole school. As stated by Harris and Jones (2010) the work of a PLN cannot just be an extra activity for a small group of teachers. The work needs to be carefully positioned within the school so that the work of the team is linked to other developments within the school in an integral and coordinated way. Working in a data team or PLN in general needs to become an integral part of routine school development. One way of doing this is by embedding this way of working in existing structures in the school (see also Chapter 11). For example, existing teacher

90  Schildkamp, Nehez, and Blossing

teams (e.g., grade level teams, subject matter teams) could adopt the data team or PLN way of working, supported by the team members already experienced in this way of working. This could lead to sustainable school improvement in terms of improved teaching and learning in the entire school.

References Brown, C., & Poortman, C. L. (2017). Introduction. In C. Brown & C. L. Poortman (Eds.), Networks for learning: Effective collaboration for teacher, school and system improvement. London: Taylor & Francis. Brown, C., Schildkamp, K., & Hubers, M.D. (in press). Combining the best of two worlds: Integrating data-based decision making with research informed teaching for evidenceinformed school improvement. Educational Research. Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M. (2011). A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 378–398. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. Desimone (2009). Improving impact studies of teacher’s professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. Earl, L., and Katz, S. (2006). Leading in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ebbeler, J., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., & Pieters, J. M. (2016). Effects of a data use intervention on educators’ use of knowledge and skills. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 48, 19–31. Ebbeler, J., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., & Pieters, J. M. (2017). The effects of a data use intervention on educators’ satisfaction and data literacy. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(1), 83–105. van Geel, M., Keuning, T.,Visscher, A. J., & Fox, J. P. (2016). Assessing the effects of a schoolwide data-based decision-making intervention on student achievement growth in primary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 360–394. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181. Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training & Development, 50(1), 54–59. Lai, M. K., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). In-service Teacher Professional Learning: Use of assessment in data-based decision-making. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 77–94). New York: Routledge. Lai, M. K., & McNaughton, S. (2013). Analysis and discussion of classroom and achievement data to raise student achievement. In S. Schildkamp, M. K. Lai, & L. Earl (Eds.), Data-based decision making in education: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 23–48). Netherlands: Springer. Lai, M. K., Wilson, A., McNaughton, S., & Hsiao, S. (2014). Improving achievement in secondary schools: Impact of a literacy project on reading comprehension and secondary school qualifications. Reading Research Quarterly, 49 (3), 305–334.

From data to learning  91

Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L.S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Marsh, J. A., Bertrand, M., & Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice:The mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 117(4). www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?Conten-tID=17849. Nelson,T. H., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn,T. (2008). A culture of collaborative inquiry: Learning to develop and support professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1269–1303. Poortman, C. L., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). Solving student achievement focused problems with a data use intervention for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 425–433. Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 482–496. Schildkamp, K., & Ehren, M. (2013). The Netherlands: From ‘‘intuition’’- to ‘‘data’’-driven decision making in Dutch secondary schools? In K. Schildkamp, M. K. Lai, & L. Earl (Eds.), Data-based decision making in education: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 49–68). Dordrecht: Springer. Schildkamp, K., & Poortman, C. L. (2015). Factors influencing the functioning of data teams. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 040310. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts,A. (2016). Data teams for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 228–254. Schildkamp, K., Smit, M., & Blossing, U. (2016, April). Professional development in the use of data: From data to knowledge in data teams. Paper presented at the AERA (American Educational Research Association) conference, Washington, USA. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Stoll, L. (2010). Professional learning community. International Encyclopedia of Education, 151–157. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258. Timperley, H., & Parr, J. (2009). Chain of influence from policy to practice in the New Zealand literacy strategy. Research Papers in Education: Policy and Practice, 24(2), 135–154. Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry: Seminar Series 234. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). London: Sage. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

6 AUSTRIA’S LERNDESIGNER NETWORK The dynamics of Virtual Professional Learning in interschool networks Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

6.1 Introduction In this chapter, the authors tell the story of how a nationwide Professional Learning Network emerged during Austria’s most significant school reform in recent decades, the ‘New Middle School’ (6.2). In an effort to improve equity and excellence, a reform pilot in lower secondary began in 2008, with the new role of Lerndesigner introduced into the Austrian school system (6.3). Initially ‘Lerndesigners’ were seen as turnkeys or change agents in and for their schools, which were piloting lower secondary reform.The role quickly took on a life of its own and gained the support of system stakeholders, a key success factor in a country with a federalist structure. The role has since become a defined teacher leadership function anchored in labor regulations, for which teachers acquire certification in a university accredited program (6.4).The authors explore responsive processes, collaboration and negotiation as well as open large-group formats for face-to-face and virtual spaces that enabled system developers to co-construct what was to become a qualification program for the role (6.4). Early on, cohorts of Lerndesigners were networked virtually in a closed space on an eduMoodle platform (6.5 and 6.6). In this chapter, the authors explore the genesis of the network in its unique context and use Berg and Zoellick’s (2017) recently proposed framework of teacher leadership dimensions as well as Polanyi’s (1951) notions of ‘corporate order’ and ‘dynamic order’ to explore how top-down strategies responsively supported eye-level network development in the interest of system development and how these efforts led to a network with a life of its own, from the profession for the profession itself (6.7 and 6.8).

6.2 Context and background of the Lerndesigner network The story of the Lerndesigner network began in 2008, when the Austrian parliament mandated a reform pilot called ‘New Middle School’ (NMS) in lower

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  93

secondary, years 5 to 8 (ages 10–14). The pilot began with 67 schools and quickly gained momentum, leading to a mandated school reform that went into effect in 2012. The reform was a response to a lack of educational mobility and equity in Austria’s public school system, long established by national and international data (Bruneforth et al., 2016; OECD, 2014; Bruneforth et al., 2012). The root causes of inequity in Austria’s public school system are familiar: structural barriers for admissions to university-track school types, a high degree of parent choice and selective ‘deep structures’ in school culture (Tye, 2000). One such deep structure includes assessment practices in primary school, which tend to be oriented to social norms rather than actual student achievement (Böheim-Galehr and Engleitner, 2014). In other words, teachers – often under the pressure of their pupils’ parents – tend to determine marks based on their perceptions of the appropriate educational path the pupil should pursue rather than on their actual abilities. The NMS model suspended tracking in ability groups in compulsory lower secondary schools and built upon the existing competence-based curriculum and performance standards for grade 8 (aged 14).While the subject-curricula and standards are identical across the entire lower secondary, two school forms exist in Austria: the 4-year compulsory middle school administered at the provincial level (grades 5–8, formerly Hauptschule) and the selective academic-track, 8-year secondary school (grades 5–12, Gymnasium) administered at the federal level. The NMS pilot legislation also provided for six additional teaching hours for team teaching per class (maximum 25 students) and student-led parent-teacher conferences (cf. WestfallGreiter, 2012; Derfler et al., 2012). While the NMS reform legislation passed in 2012 falls short of a full restructuring for a single lower secondary school for all, it has created greater flexibility in the system for both teachers and students. The academic-track secondary schools can opt in, blurring the lines between the two school forms.To date, eleven Gymnasium sites run lower secondary classes under the NMS legislation, all but one in the capital of Vienna. Although school autonomy is relatively restricted in Austria (Schratz & WestfallGreiter, 2010), the mental model behind the NMS reform pilot was one of diversity rather than uniformity (Westfall-Greiter, 2012), in large part due to the leadership of the acting Minister of Education at the time, Claudia Schmied. Her leadership was oriented to Claus Otto Scharmer’s notion of ‘System 4.0’; in other words, she strove to transform from a system of centralization in which actors ‘download’ in a top-down structure to a co-created eco-system in which they generate the future together (cf. Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013). In a conversation with Scharmer, Schmied reflected on her time as Minister: Reinventing an education system for the now-emerging 4.0 world requires more than improving test scores or adding some new classes to the curriculum … It requires an understanding that the essence of all real education is transformation. If we succeed, all school partners will focus on creating a successful school; teachers will see themselves as ‘Zubin Mehtas,’ as conductors and orchestrators of the highest creativity in their students; students will

94  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

experience co-shaping the system.The foundation of System 4.0 is the common will. That means moving the relational dimension to center stage. This is what matters most. It’s about what our schools of the future will be able to perform in order to serve the individual and communal well-being. (Schmied, quoted in Scharmer and Kaufer, 2013: 210) Schmied’s reflection illustrates why diversity served as a mental model for the NMS reform pilot. Schools were not expected to download a model and implement it but rather to create their own site-specific concepts and innovate. Networks of schools were therefore a key strategy. As Muijs et al. (2010) note, the advantage of collaborative networks over externally led school improvement programs is that they enable schools “to co-construct improvement around individual school needs, rather than buying into programs that may not be properly contextualized (Muijs et al., 2010, citing Datnow, Hubbard, and Mehan, 2003: 15).There were no prescribed answers; a space for agency was created to enable schools to find their own answers and solutions for their own questions and challenges. The confidence in schools implied in the legislation fostered a pioneer spirit in the pilot generations. It was also coherent with the tendency of schools to think and act locally in Austria’s federalist system, giving them legitimacy for innovating that might have been going on under the radar in the past. Although general regulations, curricula and standards are centralized and school development is funded by the federal level, school administration, inspection and development efforts are governed at the state provincial level. These top-down, occasionally antagonistic federalist structures are also reflected in teacher employment: Teachers in compulsory schools such as the former Hauptschule are employees of the province (Bundesland), while teachers in non-compulsory schools (Gymnasium) are federal employees, causing a highly fragmented profession. Players in external school development programs include local town councils and local school authorities as well as Pädagogische Hochschule (university colleges of teacher education), which provide federally funded school and professional development services and administer budgets for school-specific staff development. In this complicated system with multiple interests, it is difficult to create and sustain a movement.

6.3 System transformation through new roles The goal of the NMS reform pilot was to foster equity and excellence by removing tracking and encouraging innovation in teaching and learning in schools nationwide. To this end, the Ministry of Education hired an external international consultancy team (NMS-Entwicklungsbegleitung, ‘NMS-EB’) in 2008 to guide the pilot phase at a national level.The NMS-EB focused on system transformation and initiated networks and communities of practice at all system levels (Schley et al., 2009). In addition to local development services, each school year new pilot schools began a two-year national program designed by the NMS-EB; the cohorts are referred to as ‘generations’ (see ‘G’ with starting school years in Figure 6.1).

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  95

Mandated Reform

Pilot Phase

The NMS-EB used Scharmer’s ‘Theory U’ framework for system transformation and was mindful of ‘presencing’ the future (Scharmer, 2009) with stakeholders. As a result, key stakeholder groups (school inspectorates, teacher training institutes, reform coordinators, etc.) were brought together to exchange their observations and ideas in order to sense the emerging future and begin to articulate it. What solutions are arising? What new support systems are coming together? What seems to be disappearing? The Theory-U framework was, however, not the only reference point. The NMS-EB also promoted the evidence-based rationale for development work that was coherent with the Ministry’s diversity and innovation strategy: effective school reform is school-specific (Hopkins et al., 2014; Stoll et al., 2006; Day et al., 2000) and change agents need support through networking and communities of practice (Fullan, 2017; Stoll, 2015;Wenger, 1998).The main focus of national events was therefore on school principals and teachers nominated by their schools for the new role of Lerndesigner initiated by the NMS-EB. Two types of events were created: national network meetings for principals and learning ateliers for Lerndesigners. Lerndesigners are members of the teaching staff designated by their schools to attend federally funded national and regional learning ateliers lasting two to three days over the course of two years. Upon completion of the program, participants received certificates. Learning ateliers are structured through a variety of largegroup open formats to mobilize knowledge in the network and small-group focused sessions to integrate external knowledge that supports the development of evidence-informed practice (Stoll, 2015). Learning ateliers operate on the understanding that teaching is a knowledge-generating activity and that teachers are continuously and rapidly confronted with new situations to which they must respond, both by tapping into their knowledge and experience and by creating new knowledge on the spot (Westfall-Greiter, 2013a).The learning atelier approach is oriented to knowledge animation (Stoll, 2008).

Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation 4 Generation 5 Generation 6 Generation 7 Generation 8

FIGURE 6.1 

(2008/2009)

67

(2009/2010)

177

(2010/2011)

76

(2011/2012)

114

(2012/2013)

264

(2013/2014)

274

(2014/2015)

Ca.200

(2015/2016)

Ca.50

Implementation of the NMS reform in ‘Generations’.

96  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

Lerndesigners should act as turnkeys in their schools and together with their principals foster a shared leadership for learning dynamics (Westfall-Greiter, 2013b; Schley &, Schratz 2011; MacBeath & Dempster, 2008; Schratz, 2009, cited in Westfall-Greiter & Hofbauer, 2015).To foster leadership for learning, the NMS-EB conducted a parallel program for school principals, who were brought together for national network meetings each semester to address their own leadership issues, change strategies and shared leadership with the new Lerndesigners. Although participation was not mandatory, all pilot schools participated in the NMS-EB networking meetings. Participating schools were required to designate a Lerndesigner to participate in learning ateliers, a large-group format developed by the consultancy team to engage Lerndesigners in dialogue, reflection and exchange. This condition met with the support of local school authorities, although the role was largely undefined and the new role was not necessarily embraced by all stakeholders. The role was a key leverage point for system transformation in large part due to the fact that it was new and created space for agency without prescribing what was to be done in a top-down-manner. This openness forced each Lerndesigner to create his or her own role through processes of context-specific role-taking and role-making (Westfall-Greiter and Hofbauer, 2015), which was for some difficult and even painful at times. Learning to ‘switch hats’ from classroom teacher to team leader to Lerndesigner proved to be challenging. When and how am I working in the system as a teacher? When and how am I working on the system as a Lerndesigner? As a team leader or facilitator? As a coordinator? These questions became central in the learning ateliers to begin to see the contours of the Lerndesigner role more clearly. Work on the system: Lerndesigner

Work in the system: Teacher T

LD G5

T T& LD

T

LD G2

national

local

LD G8

T

T regional

PLC

LD G7

LD G7 LD G7 LD G7

FIGURE 6.2 

Work in a team: member or leader

LD G7

The roles and networks of Lerndesigners.

LD G3

VPLN

LD G7

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  97

Not only did Lerndesigners find themselves in multiple roles, they were also members of several local networks (Figure 6.2). Some provinces arranged for local meetings for Lerndesigners; others participated in networks that had emerged in other projects. They were also commonly members of school development teams at their schools and leaders of subject teams. These multiple roles and multiple networks created a highly complex context for Lerndesigners. Although a profile for the Lerndesigner role was distributed to school principals in 2009 (Generation 2), the role was completely new and the function was not yet secured in the system. Further, compensation varied by state province and school, depending on the willingness of local authorities and school principals, and ranged from nothing to two teaching hours per week. As a result, Lerndesigners were frequently the ‘usual suspects’: those with a record of innovation, ongoing professional development and willingness to take on responsibility for school development. Often, it was their relationship to the school principal that influenced nomination, and occasionally it was random: How did I become a Lerndesigner? Well, my head got the email about nominating one and said to himself, ‘The next person who comes through my door is going to be it!’ I was the next one who entered his office and here I am! Lerndesigner Generation 2 Consequently, teachers came to the Lerndesigner role more or less informed; personal motivation varied, as did their legitimacy among school faculty and the support received by school principals. The NMS implementation was completed at the end of the 2016–2017 school year with the certification of Generation 8. Surprisingly, fluctuation has been relatively low (below 10%), with over half retracting the role due to retirement or promotion, usually to the function of school principal (Westfall-Greiter and Hofbauer, 2015). In fact, in a system with no required pre-qualification for school principals, the Lerndesigner program, now a formalized blended learning program worth 15 credits in the European Credit Transfer System, has become valuable for those desiring to face the challenges of leading schools as principals.

6.4 The emergence of the teacher leadership To understand the dynamics and genesis of the Lerndesigner network, it is essential to see the new role as an intervention that led to the emergence of teacher leadership in the Austrian system. Echoing Scharmer’s notion of ‘System 1.0’ (centralized, vertical systems), Liebermann (2000: 226) notes that teachers are often positioned in top-down structures, where they are expected to download centralized policies, treated “as passive receivers of prescriptive programs, given little time or incentive to integrate these new programs into their classroom practice.” Even professional learning communities at the school level find themselves in this sandwich position,

98  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

“situated between the educational policies of school districts and the realities of schools and practicing teachers” (Dooner et al., 2008: 564) and between “macro or system-level directives and resources and the ‘micro’-realities of teachers’ classrooms” (McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006: 4). “Networks, in contrast, involve their members in a variety of activities that reflect the purposes and changing needs of their participants” (Liebermann, 2000: 226).The NMS-EB approached the Lerndesigners as a network from the very beginning, and occasionally had to resist their call for prescriptive programs. Already in Generation 2, the second cohort in the reform pilot, some Lerndesigners were unsatisfied with their first network encounter. “Just tell us what to do, and we’ll do it!” was a common criticism heard at learning ateliers. Not surprisingly, nominated Lerndesigners came to the first event with their teacher hats on and their expectations of receiving professional development from external experts went unmet. Others said, “This is all well and good and I get it that we’re supposed to do our own development work, but what am I supposed to say to my colleagues when I get back home? They’re expecting recipes and instructions from me!” Managing these expectations became a focus in ‘feeding forward’ phases at the end of learning ateliers, where Lerndesigners learned to think strategically and systematically about their next steps ‘back home.’ This work was instructive; Lerndesigners had to first learn to network and participate in a network in order to gain from networking. Back at their schools, role-taking and role-making was a struggle for some, as they indicated in a survey in 2010. Christoph Hofbauer and Tanja Westfall-Greiter, members of the original NMS-EB team and today co-directors of the Ministry’s Center for Learning Schools responsible for guiding the reform legislation, asked Lerndesigners of Generations 2 and 3 Inform Instructional development Implement change, initiate critical reflection Take on tasks in the sense of shared leadership Advisor/coach for colleagues Relieve insecurities, strengthen team building Be up-to-date, act as a role model, learn School development Foster mindfulness of learning ("Lernseitigkeit") Act as a connection between system and school Produce materials for self and others 0

FIGURE 6.3 

50

Emerging actions of Lerndesigners.

100

150

200

250

300

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  99

to write a one-minute essay about what they do as Lerndesigners in their schools and clustered their responses to identify categories of action (Figure 6.3). In their first publication positioning Lerndesigners as teacher leaders, WestfallGreiter and Hofbauer (2010) quoted selected responses from the survey (our translation): Some Lerndesigners saw themselves as those colleagues who introduce new ideas, encourage innovation and initiate new ways of thinking: “The Lerndesigner prepares the soil in which the seeds of the new learning culture and assessment can be sown.” Lerndesigner G2 Others struggled to create their roles in their school contexts: “Lerndesigner is a difficult role at my school … I see my role as being a good example … Slowly, the term isn’t being ridiculed anymore. Slowly, colleagues see that I am doing some things differently. Slowly, they’re even asking questions. – ‘How do you do that?’” Lerndesigner G2 The third area many identified was establishing relationships and team building: “Listen, if colleagues come with problems. Try to find solutions. Don’t give up or get tired. Follow up. (Has anything changed for the better? If not, why not? How can we make it work?)” Lerndesigner G3 That Lerndesigners did not see themselves as consultants or professional developers in an asymmetric relationship (“I am the knower delivering knowledge to non-knowers”) was revealed in the surprisingly low number who reported delivering materials; for Westfall-Greiter and Hofbauer (2010) this was a sign that the Lerndesigners were on their way to being leaders. One Lerndesigner from Generation 2 established the boundaries of her role by listing what she is not in her response: 1 No executive body that follows the orders of ‘higher ups’ and makes sure that ‘those down there’ are doing what they’re supposed to. 2 No ‘bow-wow’ that monitors ‘the others’ to make sure they’re doing what they should. 3 No projection surface for displeased teachers because it’s not as threatening as the boss himself. 4 No work animal that produces materials. 5 No advertising machine! Based on this first survey, it became clear that the potential and power of teacher leadership lies in the democratization processes it inevitably injects in school cultures. A national network of this new professional role was key to establishing awareness

100  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

for teacher leadership and build on the notion of shared leadership fostered by the Austrian Leadership Academy (Schley & Schratz, 2011).Westfall-Greiter and Hofbauer (2010) point to the prerequisite of sharing, namely, a counterpart at eye level to share with. “A learning organization needs shared leadership,” writes Schratz, “Joint effort to master complex challenges need the resources of all and each takes on leadership tasks appropriate to the jobs to be done and the situations. […] the heartbeat of leadership [is] a relationship, not a person or process” (2009: 5). Shared leadership is a concept that gets to the heart of the relationship between principals and teachers (Barth, 2001: 449) and requires strong professional relationships (Barth, 2006).To share leading, leaders must perceive relationships and create them in such a way that sharing is possible.“Understood as a school development strategy, shared leadership transforms the merely involved into the engaged and is initially much more a re-culturing rather than a restructuring of schools” (Westfall-Greiter & Hofbauer, 2010: 10). Citing Barth, they argue that shared leadership is rooted in democracy and shared leadership leads to democratization.The challenge lies in traditional school culture: Few schools operate democratically. Their governance is more akin to a dictatorship (albeit usually a benevolent one) than to a New England town meeting. … when teachers take on important schoolwide responsibilities, they take a huge step in transforming their school from a dictatorship to a democracy. (Barth, 2001: 444) While one such counterpart for sharing leading and fostering democratization in the NMS reform was clearly the Lerndesigner, they were not the only ones. Other roles and functions existed in the schools already, although they involved mainly coordination tasks. Through the lens of teacher leadership, the Center for Learning Schools developed a toolkit for principals and Lerndesigners (partly available in English in the EPNoSL Leadership for Equity Toolkit 2015, cf. Schratz, Krenn and Aigner, 2015), including a method for analyzing the roles and functions among their staff in order to identify the ‘sleeping giants’ (Katzenmayer & Moller, 2009) of teacher leaders. In 2012, when the Center for Learning Schools was established by the Ministry to ensure continuity in NMS development under reform legislation, Westfall-Greiter and Hofbauer identified the following criteria for identifying those colleagues who are de facto acting as teacher leaders.This is visible whenever a teacher: •• •• •• ••

sees what needs doing beyond their work as teachers; takes on a task beyond their classroom responsibilities; takes on responsibility for the school’s success; breaks ranks and becomes noticeable for colleagues (from actively contributing to directly intervening).

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  101

Lerndesigners are perhaps the most visible teacher leaders in Austria, in part due to their two-year program but also due to their name: ‘Lerndesign,’ referring to backwards instructional design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This was a new word that received media attention early on in the reform and quickly became part of ‘NMSspeak’ that emerged in the network meetings and spread quickly to all system levels, now explicitly anchored in NMS legislation of 2012. The Lerndesigner role has also become an official function in new labor regulations that went into effect in 2014. The cultural shift described above not only affects the principal; it affects colleagues as well. Lerndesigners often reported backlash. By taking on a teacher leadership role, teachers ‘break ranks’ and become visible to colleagues as leaders. In the flat hierarchy typically found in Austrian schools where teacher leadership is new, this ‘making oneself visible’ can cause irritation, on a spectrum from speaking up and attracting colleagues’ attention to designed intervention and inspiring colleagues’ resistance.This phenomenon was identified by Lortie (1975) as the ‘autonomy-parity pattern’ in his sociological study of the schoolteacher; teachers enjoy autonomy and structural equality (equal pay for unequal performance), which for good reason can be perceived as a threat to the current order in a school’s culture.The following vignette from a virtual Professional Learning Network (PLN) session (Westfall-Greiter, 2013c) illustrates the tensions that arise when this new order begins to emerge: Anne is furious. Everyone else in the PL[N] is reporting that although ‘teacher leadership’ isn’t part of their school vocabulary, the role of teacher leaders is nonetheless central. Neither is true for her school. Her principal delegates responsibilities when there is need.There is even constant fluctuation in their School Development Team! How did she become a Lerndesigner? She just happened to be in the principal’s office when the form arrived to register a Lerndesigner and got the job. She wants to know if teacher leaders also have authority so they can, for example, call team meetings. And she also wants to know what benefits others see in their teacher leader roles and who would put themselves through all of that under the given circumstances. Actually she’s not really thinking about teacher leaders in general; she’s really thinking about herself at her school. Anne is growing impatient. She wants answers to the question of what processes are necessary to introduce teacher leaders in a school. (TLS1 V3 20140512, cf.Westfall-Greiter, 2013c)

6.5 The emergence of the Virtual Professional Learning Network The network meetings that began with the NMS pilot included a consistent and coherent subtext oriented to schools as learning organizations (Stoll & Kools, 2017; Kools & Stoll, 2016; Schratz & Westfall-Greiter, 2010). From the beginning of the reform pilot, the NMS-EB worked closely with NMS-eLearning, an external support structure established to foster eLearning and digital competencies both among

102  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

teaching staff as well as among students. The fruitful cooperation with NMSeLearning made it possible to quickly implement and develop an eduMoodle platform that served as an online library and archive as well as a virtual location for community building.The Lerndesigners were the first group to be networked on the platform in 2009 and continue to be the most dominant group on a platform that has over one million hits per year (Westfall-Greiter & Hofbauer, 2016). During the pilot, each generation had its own closed forum, a virtual space for communicating with one another and the NMS-EB team as well as for upand downloading resources specific to their learning, such as background reading and materials. The content and topics in the forum were oriented to issues that emerged in face-to-face learning ateliers, establishing a link to analogue experience and the digital world. Many Lerndesigners in the first generations found the adjustment to virtual communication difficult; for some, it was the first time they had participated in a forum and they lacked digital competency, further increasing challenges and potential barriers to participation and steepening their learning curve. Conversations and informal surveys at learning ateliers as well as the documentation of user access data on the platform showed, however, that almost all Lerndesigners were active – some silently and invisibly in that they faithfully read the postings that landed in their mailboxes or ‘lurked’ in that they accessed the forum without posting. In 2012, the Center for Learning Schools made several changes based on central system development questions (Westfall-Greiter, 2013b: 2): ••

•• •• •• •• ••

How can the quality of national qualification programs and networking events be sustained and improved when transferred to system partners (Pädagogische Hochschulen)? How can the NMS school networks be strengthened? How can change agents be kept up-to-date and linked with the community of practice at the national level? How can the impact of change agents at the school level be assessed? How can shared leadership as a strategy for quality development be fostered? How can the role of the Lerndesigner be secured in the system?

Through responsive processes during the NMS-EB period from 2008–2012, the learning ateliers had evolved to a qualification program for Lerndesigners with a formal curriculum of 15 credits that ended in certification. The curriculum was developed and refined in response to pilot schools’ needs in light of curricular requirements and comprises six development areas: •• •• •• ••

mindfulness of learning (Schratz, 2009); difference and diversity; competence orientation; ‘backwards design’ curriculum development (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, 2007; Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006);

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  103

•• ••

differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2003; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010); assessment.

The network meetings for school principals only were abandoned to create joint national learning ateliers with the Lerndesigners. This ‘dynamic development duo’, as it has come to be called in the diction of the reform project, has been recognized as key for the Lerndesigners to become effective change agents. The strategy of inviting ‘duos’ to network meetings, first trialed in the 2011/2012 school year, has proven more effective in strengthening shared leadership between school principals and Lerndesigners, confirmed by participants’ positive feedback. In addition, a strategy for maintaining the NMS network with Generation 1 and 2 schools, whose programs had concluded at the national level, was first piloted in January 2012 in the form of two symposia. Lerndesigners and their principals were invited to a two-day symposium in which they could have access to keynotes by external experts, attend workshops related to NMS goals and development topics and network with others. The participants’ feedback was overwhelmingly positive and these symposia for intergenerational networking have become annual events with up to 250 attendees each, offered two to four times per year to reach as many participants as possible. Beyond face-to-face events, all Lerndesigners were brought together across generations virtually in a ‘meta-course’ for all generations called the ‘Online Lernatelier for Lerndesigners’ (OLLD) on the platform (Figure 6.4). By this time, the platform

New Middle School Reform Genesis of Lerndesigner Network Schools

Pilot

2009/2010 2010/2011

Virtual Professional Learning Network - inter-generational

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Generation 1

67

Generation 2

76

Generation 3

114

Generation 4 Generation 5

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017

Intra-generational horizontal network

FIGURE 6.4 

177

Generation 6 Generation 7 Generation 8

264 274 200

50

Inter-generational vertical network = OLLD

Genesis of Lerndesigner Network – horizontal and vertical networking.

104  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

had become a key part of the communication infrastructure and social architecture, enabling the Center for Learning Schools to provide spaces for network learning, which now include virtual interschool PLNs, self-study courses, webinars and forums. At this point, it is helpful to clarify the terminology used by the Center for Learning Schools and in the NMS community. The Lerndesigner network is an interschool network of teacher leaders engaged in professional learning across provincial and school boundaries. Members share a professional language and common challenges and goals they pursue by working together to animate and generate knowledge. In other words, we describe the Lerndesigner community as a Professional Learning Network. The term Professional Learning Community (PLC) refers to a specific activity in which groups of teachers engage to structure and focus their own professional learning. Because structured and focused PLC work was largely unknown in Austrian school culture, PLCs are also seen as a strategy for school development and are frequently initiated by school leadership within the school. Lerndesigners participated in interschool PLN-work at the learning ateliers to learn how to structure and focus professional learning in a way that it could be fit into their busy schedules. Provided with PLC structures and formats, they were then encouraged to initiate the first intraschool PLC at their sites by inviting congenial colleagues to work with them in a structured manner on a common challenge. Virtual PLNs were first piloted by the Center for Learning Schools in 2013. Virtual PLNs meet in a virtual meeting space on the platform. Lerndesigners work together across schools on problems and challenges they are struggling with, using the same formats for structuring sessions they learned in the learning ateliers. The following vignette from a virtual PLN meeting illustrates the professional discourse Lerndesigners engage in with network members nationwide: Linda, Leyla and Lucy are having a lively discussion about Marzano’s scales and Webb’s Depths of Knowledge model. Laura, who hasn’t yet worked with the tools, is listening in attentively. “I’ve been off a few times with my selection of a task,” says Lucy, “Afterwards you realize that, but mistakes happen.” “Inventing them myself is a real challenge for me and it’s hard work,” pipes in Leyla. “Yes, we’re not used to thinking about scales.We didn’t use to question that,” replies Lucy. After a pause Leyla says, “Now we’re discovering what was missing with all the examples and what we never bothered with. We never required students to think, that’s what I realize.” “Exactly, and with listening and reading skills we went at it strategically, we never thought about it,” says Lucy. “That’s the truth,” she adds after a brief pause. “Yes, that’s the truth,” reinforces Leyla. There is silence. Each seems to be trying to catch up with her own thoughts. In her function as facilitator Laura gently interrupts the hush in the room: “Yes, is there anything else?” (LB1 HV4 20140602, cf.Westfall-Greiter, 2013c)

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  105

6.6 Working in the Virtual Professional Learning Networks (Analysis of the VPLNs) The ‘Online Learning Atelier for all Lerndesigners’ (OLLD) is the key virtual space for the Lerndesigner network to communicate and co-create and for the Center for Learning Schools (CLS) to engage with the network. Three main forum types exist in the OLLD space: ‘News and Updates’ for CLS communication to the network, ‘Learning’ as a forum for setting impulses for professional learning related to current issues in the NMS development, and ‘Developing’ for Lerndesigners to cocreate with one another virtually. It is not surprising that the ‘Developing’ forum is the most lively as a PLN (see Figure 6.5). Nearly all of the entries are from Lerndesigners themselves and focus on professional topics related to the practice development. Helga Diendorfer (2016), a member of the Center for Learning Schools, conducted an exhaustive analysis of the discourse in the OLLD in 2015–2016. The results were published by the CLS and highlight key discourse topics in the virtual network, summarized in Table 6.1. As Hadfield points out “networks require facilitation” (2005: 185). Until now, the second author of this chapter has been the lead facilitator in all Lerndesigner forums on the platform and continues to do so in the Online Lernatelier. She is supported by CLS staff members and some Lerndesigners have emerged as co-­ facilitators on their own. As facilitator and co-director of CLS, Westfall-Greiter not only responds to postings initiated by Lerndesigners, but also initiates topics and provides updates from the CLS. Initiating new topics now focuses mainly on sharing external knowledge gained from international conferences and current literature.

Developing

Learning

News & Updates − General Information for all generations and updates regarding actual topics − Over 180 entries, 80% from CLS − 140 with less than one reply

FIGURE 6.5 

− Topics are about new tools and innovates according to the new reform − Activity decreases − About 60 entries − 40 CLS − 20 LD

− Topics regarding new instructional models, assessment tools and competence models − Most active strand − Over 100 entries - Only 40 less than two replies - Most of the entries are from the LD so as the answers

Strands of OLLD – increasing activity actions.

106  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter TABLE 6.1  Key discourse topics at the OLLD

Overall topics

Subtopics

Professionalization Cooperation and Collegiality Professional Self-Awareness Reflectivity and Discourse Ability Personal Mastery NMS Specifics Lerndesign (Backwards Design) Criteria-Oriented Assessment Differentiation ‘Lernseitigkeit’1 Competence-Based Learning Diversity

Lerndesigners report the value of outside input to broaden their horizons, and this resource supports their learning and thinking.

6.7 The potential of Virtual Professional Learning Networks in system transformation The story of the Lerndesigner network as it evolved from face-to-face networking to a Virtual Professional Learning Network (VPLN) has brought with it many lessons. It has also revealed a lack of clarity among common terms, including ‘professional learning,’ ‘professional learning community,’ and ‘Professional Learning Network.’ Our understanding of professional learning is any learning activity driven by and for professionals, oriented to problems or questions that emerge in their practice. This growing tendency to put learning into the hands of the professionals themselves has been referred to by some as ‘flipped’ or ‘personalized’ professional development (Hardin and Koppenhaver, 2016; Bretzmann, 2015), because external programs with more or less prescription for practice are being replaced by activities that create space for professionals to learn from one another at eye level. It is the choice of the professionals themselves to engage external knowledge or invite external experts to contribute to their work as they generate knowledge, seek solutions and grow as professionals. This mobilization of knowledge (Stoll, 2015) is a dynamic evident in all of the virtual communication among Lerndesigners. While the CLS initially worked with a definition of Professional Learning Community as a focused school development strategy initiated by school leadership, this understanding has also evolved into one coherent with professional learning. Early in the PLC literature, DuFour and Eaker (1998) identified criteria: •• •• •• •• •• ••

shared mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; action orientation and experimentation; continuous improvement; results orientation.

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  107

Hord (2004) moves toward the notion of professional learning driven by and for practitioners and cites the following indicators: •• •• •• •• ••

supportive and shared leadership; shared values and vision; collective learning and application of learning; supportive conditions; shared practice.

As noted earlier, Lerndesigners are encouraged to initiate PLC work in their schools based on school and teacher needs. On the NMS platform, they can request a PLC room at any time to engage with others struggling with similar aspects in their practice. The power of national networking and fostering change agents are generally seen as keys to the success in the narrative surrounding the NMS reform, but these claims have yet to be supported by data.The NMS-EB focused on networking at all system levels, so that by the second year of the pilot the reform project gained significant momentum and it became clear by the third year that the reform spirit could not be assuaged. This seems to have been one reason why the school reform was mandated earlier than planned, a year before the planned evaluation of the NMS reform pilot. Factors related to the success of the Lerndesigner network are more easily identifiable: •• •• ••

The online platform for Lerndesigners enables easy communication and exchange of ideas and innovations across the country. Regular networking events in which qualification is embedded build identity, professionalism and confidence. Personal support and easy access to expertise build trust.

Stewardship was the primary success factor for the development and implementation of the Lerndesigners role as well as the creation of a strong school network. This stewardship includes: •• •• ••

••

the financial commitment of the Ministry to enable national network meetings and qualification programs; cooperation and commitment of key players in the Ministry to ensure the linking of development strategies with other initiatives and institutions; an independent external consultancy which focused on system development and initiated system interventions from outside following the strategy of ‘presencing the future’ (Scharmer, 2009); the personal commitment and relationship skills of the consultants.

Further supportive factors include the integration of the structure in everyday practice and the platform as a source of comprehensive information and resources to access both internal and external knowledge.

108  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

Most importantly, the NMS platform enables a professional network to form out of the responsive reskilling and upskilling strategy begun by the NMS-EB and continue its own development. It is no longer a professionalization initiative from outside but rather a professionalization movement from inside. We also have come to look at the virtual space as an innovation milieu. While innovation is commonly conceptualized as a process, particularly by government bodies seeking to foster innovation in their education systems, these external interventions and top-down requirements are not enough to foster an innovation culture at the school level.The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement avoids a concrete definition of innovation by claiming on their website that: In the world of education, innovation comes in many forms. There are ­innovations in the way education systems are organized and managed, exemplified by charter schools or school accountability systems. There are innovations in instructional techniques or delivery systems, such as the use of new technologies in the classroom. There are innovations in the way teachers are recruited, and prepared, and compensated. The list goes on and on. (Department of Education, 2004: online reference) The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in Victoria, Australia, is much more concrete. On their website, they rather passionately claim that “being innovative is about looking beyond what we currently do well, identifying the great ideas of tomorrow and putting them into practice” (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2012). They justify the need for innovation by arguing that “we need a bigger ambition than improving education” (ibid.). Innovation is about “doing things in new or different ways. It may range from continuous improvement of existing practices through to transformation of how we achieve goals or rethinking what those goals are” (DEECD, 2012). The Department’s Innovation Model is based on the Innovation Unit’s ‘Triple Diamond Model’ and comprises three stages (Figure 6.6). •• •• ••

Stimulate: system level reflection. Look at what’s happening and what’s been tried. Explore new ways and add new ideas. Incubate: local level action. Test ideas and develop the ones that work. Support change leadership and create communities of practice. Accelerate: system learning. Share what has been learned and scale-up the ideas that worked.

In these conceptualizations of innovation as a process, there is a pattern of tension between the micro- and macro-levels, for example, the classroom or school and the school system. These tensions are often grasped as vertical levels rather than as parts of wholes or wholes in wholes. By conceptualizing innovation as a milieu in a larger eco-system, system development efforts can break through top-down, centralized structures and move towards co-creation. Hannon et al. (2011: 18) take the need for an innovation-friendly milieu into consideration in their white paper

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  109

3. Accelerate

2. Incubate

FIGURE 6.6 

1. Stimulate

Triple Diamond Model of the Department of Innovation.

entitled “Developing an Innovation Ecosystem for Education,” calling for the creation of “conditions for a flourishing ecosystem of innovation should be our objective if organized learning is to adapt adequately to the pressures and opportunities for change.” Further, Hannon (2013) calls for new metrics in the measurement of effectiveness and emphasizes that the logic of improvement in education and its related understandings are not appropriate if the goal is transformation. In a keynote at the Conference on Learning Leadership, she posited ‘fuzziness’ as an indicator of transformation, the shift from one paradigm to another. Similarly, Scharmer’s Theory U is focused on initiating not-knowing, presencing the emerging future and holding the space for what emerges, allowing the contours to form through a stewardship of the emergent.This understanding reveals a critical point in an innovation milieu: Who are the stewards and what is their responsibility in protecting the emergent and co-evolving the transformation? The metaphors of milieu, system and eco-system express implicitly a spectrum of innovation from incremental change to transformation. This range seems to be an inevitable way of addressing the situatedness of innovation. Actions embody both social relations and ideas (Winch, 2008). Innovation as an action that at once moves away from the old and moves toward the new (Waldenfels, 2005) is always an action by an actor that forces change in a practice with its own history, traditions, rules and ideas. The new emerges and a transitory moment (fuzziness) occurs, in which the old no longer serves and the new is not yet established. This moment is fragile, accompanied by insecurity, fuzziness and disorientation. If innovation is framed in professional practice as Hargreaves (2003) does, the situatedness of practice can be addressed. Building on James Spillane’s work in the practice of leadership (2013), we see that (1) each situation is unique and non-­ recurring; (2) it is the situation that defines whether or not the activity is innovative; and (3) innovation is manifested in the change of tools, routines, structures and people. In this regard, it can be argued that teaching is a complex activity of ongoing innovation in that teachers respond to unique situations with situated, one-time

110  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

solutions in the classroom. For the CLS to act as a steward of the emergent, innovation must be defined in such a way that it is something other than responsive teaching, for example, as a newly conceived change in tools, routines, and people. As a result, the CLS works with a definition of innovation as an act of ‘going into the new’ on the part of practitioners. They do this by realizing via prototypes a previously unknown, newly conceived change in tools, routines, structures and/ or people in response to apparently intractable problems. The change permanently affects which situations are enabled and hindered in the environment, thereby changing the experience and practice of all involved. Practitioner-led educational innovation in the microcosm is: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

unknown in the accessible domain of public and professional knowledge; untried in the context of the innovation; connected to an intention of defensible professional and public value; informed regarding what is already out there; conscious; rapid, rough and risky; evaluated in relation to intention and impact; made public.

6.8 Conclusion System-wide innovation may be known in the accessible domain of public and professional knowledge but is new to the macrocosm. This includes knowledge gained from school effectiveness research as well as knowledge from other scientific disciplines and domains in society. To avoid thinking in vertical levels, we have chosen to think of micro- and macrocosms, that is, wholes in wholes. To make the transfer from microcosm to macrocosm, the criteria of relevance, viability and scalability after prototyping and evaluation in the microcosm support decision-making regarding spread in the larger system.The degree to which these innovations (‘seeds for systemic change’) have an impact on the macrocosm depends on the degree to which they are linked with macro-level leadership and ‘co-evolving’ (Scharmer, 2009) is initiated and sustained. This focus on the innovation milieu is at the foundation of supporting and enabling the Lerndesigner network. While it is unclear how the professionalization and empowerment of teacher leaders is affecting individual schools, anecdotal evidence indicates that the Lerndesigner network has a positive impact on school organizations when legitimacy, support, objective and method (Berg & Zoellick, 2017) are given at the school level so that they can be effective teacher leaders. From the policy and system development perspectives, the difficulty of measuring impact on a broad scale may be unnerving or even unacceptable. If practice as a system or institution has its own rules that are the legacy (and the burden) of tradition and school practice is situated in the unique context of the school, it is impossible to generalize and therefore impossible to prescribe any one answer or solution. Rather, it is a system of rules that informs practice and action. Practice is

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  111

never purely reproductive. Further, there is always a space of the unregulated in any system or rules. As the German phenomenologist Bernhard Waldenfels observes, there is “something unregulated in the regulated that calls for changes and allows for new regulations” (2005: 90, our translation).Veugelers and John O’Hair recommend that networks remain fluid by “being aware of the danger of ‘freezing’ growth patterns in networking” (2005: 216). This is of particular importance in a systemwide movement like the Lerndesigner network. Instead of becoming a frozen network VPLNs should be multiple flexible networks that increase deutero-learning processes (cf. Kools & Stoll, 2016: 17). Instead of just responding to errors (singleloop learning) or modifying assumptions and procedures (double-loop learning), deutero-learning focuses on the organization’s ability to learn about learning. The Lerndesigner network seems to be an example of a fluid network that used and continues to use unregulated spaces to enable Lerndesigners to engage in professional learning that leads to new rules, norms and values as a professional community of practice. Sustainability through such fluidity appears to be a key element in Austria’s experience with whole-system change, energized and sustained by the professionals mobilizing and generating knowledge to respond to the unique challenges they face.

Online references •• •• ••

United States Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement: https://innovation.ed.gov Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in Victoria: www.education.vic.gov.au/childhood NMS-Platform: www.nmsvernetzung.at

References Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443–449. Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 8. Berg, J. H., & Zoellick, W. (2017). “Toward a More Empirically Useful Conception of Teacher Leadership.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, April 28, 2017. Böheim-Galehr, G., & Engleitner, J. (Eds.) (2014). Schule der 10- bis 14-Jährigen in Vorarlberg. Entwicklungen, Bildungshaltungen und Bildungserwartungen. Projektbericht Band 1 (FokusBildungSchule Bd. 6). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. Bretzmann, J. (2015). Personalized PD: Flipping your professional development. New Berlin, WI: The Bretzmann Group. Bruneforth, M., Weber, C., & Bacher, J. (2012). Chancengleichheit und garantiertes Bildungsminimum in Österreich. In Herzog-Punzenberger, B. (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht 2012 Band 2 (pp. 189–227). Wien: BIFIE. Bruneforth, M., Lassnigg, L., Vogtenhuber, S., Schreiner, C., & Breit, S. (Eds) (2016). Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2015, Band 1: Das Schulsystem im Spiegel von Daten und Indikatoren. Graz: Leykam.

112  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L. and Mehan, H. 2003. Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer. Day C., Harris A., Hadfield M., Tolley H., & Beresford J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Open University Press, Buckingham DEECD (2012). The Department’s Innovation Model. Unpublished paper. www.education. vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/ihwhy.aspx. Derfler, B., Kiemayer, R., & Leitner, G. (2012). Kinder-Eltern-Lehrergespräche: Wege zu einer stärkenorientierten und wertschätzenden Kommunikation in Grundschule und Sekundarstufe I. Ennsthaler. Diendorfer, Helga (2016). NMS Einsichten IV. Innsbruck: Center for Learning Schools. Retrieved from www.nmsvernetzung.at/pluginfile.php/13236/mod_forum/post/ 26155/NMS_EinsichtenIV_102016_LY3.pdf. Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 564–574. EPNoSL. (2015). Teacher Leadership Toolkit. http://toolkit.schoolleadership.eu/teacher_ leadership_intro.php Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada: Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. Retrieved from http://npdl. global/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/npdl- case_study_3.pdf. Hadfield, M. (2005). From networking to school networks to ‘networked learning’: The challenge for the Networked Learning Communities programme. Network learning for educational change, 172–191. Hannon,V. (2013). Leadership for System Transformation. Keynote by Learning Leadership Conference of OECD-ILE, Barcelona, Spain, 5 December 2013. Retrieved from www. youtube.com/watch?v=bQoAq6bewSc. Hannon, V., Patton, A., & Temperley, J. (2011). Developing an innovation ecosystem for education. San Jose, CA: Cisco & Innovation Unit. Hardin, B. L., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2016). Flipped professional development: An innovation in response to teacher insights. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 45–54. Hargreaves, D. H. (2003) Education epidemic: Transforming secondary schools through innovation networks. London: DEMOS. Retrieved from demos.co.uk/files/ educationepidemic.pdf. Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, A. (2014) School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281. Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. OECD. (2014). OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Austria. Paris: OECD. skills.oecd. org/supplyskills/documents/oecdskillsstrategydiagnosticreportaustria.html Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kools, M., & Stoll, L. (2016).What makes a school a learning organisation?. OECD Education Working Papers, (137), 0_1. Liebermann, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities. Shaping the future of teacher development. Journal for Teacher Education, 51(3), 221–227. Lortie, D. C. (1975): School teacher: A sociological perspective. 2. Auflage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). Teachers College Press.

Austria’s Lerndesigner network  113

MacBeath, J., & Cheng, Y. C. (Eds.) (2008). Leadership for learning: International perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. MacBeath, J., & Dempster, N. (Eds.). (2008). Connecting leadership and learning: Principles for practice. Routledge. Muijs, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 5–26. Polanyi, M. (1951). The logic of liberty: Reflections and rejounders. London: Routledge. Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Oakland: Berett-Koehler Publishers. Scharmer, C. O., & Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to ecosystem economies. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Schley, W., & Schratz, M. (2011). Developing leaders, building networks, changing schools through system leadership. In T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.) International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 267–295). Netherlands: Springer. Schley, W., Schratz, M., Hofbauer, C., & Westfall-Greiter, T. (2009). Das Konzept der NMSEntwicklungsbegleitung als Transformationsprozess. Erziehung und Unterricht, 159(7–8), 686–696. Schratz, M. (2009).‘Lernseits’ von Unterricht: Alte Muster, neue Lebenswelten – was für Schulen? Lernende Schule, 12(46,47), 16–21. Schratz, M., Krenn, S., & Aigner, H. (2015). Case study from Austria – Teacher Leadership at the New Middle School (NMS) – System-wide reform for enhancing equity and learning in Austria’s lower secondary schools. School Leadership Policy Practices for Equity and Learning: EPNoSL Case Studies, 17–29. Retrieved from www.schoolleadership.eu/portal/ deliverable/school-leadership-policy-practices-equity-and-learning-epnosl-case-studies Schratz, M., & Westfall-Greiter, T. (2010). School-based curriculum development in Austria. In E. Haufai Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.) Schools as curriculum agencies. Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 167–177. Schratz, M., & Westfall-Greiter, T. (2015). Learning as experience: A continental European perspective on the nature of learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.) (2010). The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 14–33). Spillane, J. P. (2013). The practice of leading and managing teaching in educational organisations. OECD Center for Educational Research and Innovation (Ed.), Leadership for 21st Century Learning (pp. 59–82). Paris: OECD. Stoll, L. (2008) Leadership and policy learning communities: Promoting knowledge animation. In B. Chakroun & P. Sahlberg (Eds.) Policy learning in action: ETF Yearbook 2008. Torino, Italy: European Training Foundation. Stoll, L. (2015) Using, evidence, learning and the role of professional learning communities. In C. Brown (Ed.) Leading the use of research and evidence in schools (pp. 53–64). London, IOE Press. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Stoll, L., Brown, C., Spence-Thomas, K., & Taylor, C. (2015) Perspectives on teacher leadership for evidence-informed improvement in England, Leading and Managing, 21 (2), 76–91. Stoll, L. , & Kools, M. (2017). The school as a learning organisation: A review revisiting and extending a timely concept. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2, 2–17. Available at https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2016-0022 Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom.Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

114  Livia Roessler and Tanja Westfall-Greiter

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tye, B. B. (2000). Hard truths: Uncovering the deep structure of schooling. New York: Teachers College Press U.S. Department of Education. (2004). What is Innovation? Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html. Veugelers, W., & O’Hair, M. J. (2005). Network learning for educational change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Waldenfels, B. (2005). In den Netzen der Lebenswelt. 3. Auflage. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westfall-Greiter, T. (2012). Orientierungshilfe Leistungsbeurteilung. Teil 2: KEL Gespräche. http://www.nmsvernetzung.at/mod/glossary/view.php?id=2473&mode=entry&h ook=1732 Westfall-Greiter, T. (2013a). Contemplating one’s way beyond teaching: “Lernseits” as personal imperative. In E. Christoff & J. F. Schwartz (2013). Lernseits des Geschehens: Über das Verhältnis von Lernen, Lehren und Leiten. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 103–118. Westfall-Greiter,T. (2013b). System Monitoring Note 1 Austria:The Lerndesigner-Network. OECD’s Innovative Learning Environments, Strand 3. URL: www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/ AUT.MonitoringNote1.pdf Westfall-Greiter, T. (2013c). Fostering a network of change agents: Lerndesigner as teacher leaders in Austria’s lower secondary reform. In OECD (Ed.) Leadership for 21st Century Learning (pp. 137–145). Paris: OECD. Westfall-Greiter, T., & Hofbauer, C. (2010). Shared Leadership setzt Teacher Leaders voraus: Lerndesigner/innen im Feld der Neuen Mittelschule. Journal für Schulentwicklung,Vol. 4. Westfall-Greiter, T., & Hofbauer, C. (2015). Fostering teacher leaders for sustainable school reform: System-wide strategies in Austria’s lower secondary school reform. Ricercazione, 125. Westfall-Greiter,T., & Hofbauer, C. (2016). School walkthrough ein werkzeug für kriterienorientierte schulentwicklung. (B. f. (ZLS), Hrsg.) Wien, Österreich: AMEDIA GmbH. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. 2nd edn.Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Winch, P. (2008). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. New York: Routledge.

7 A PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NETWORK FOR THE ENTIRE LOCAL EDUCATION SYSTEM Educational landscapes in Germany Pierre Tulowitzki, Anika Duveneck and Michael Krüger

The school has its own role to play and will have to develop it even further. But it will be less and less in a position to claim the education functions in society as its special prerogative. All sectors—public administration, industry, communications, transport—must take part in promoting education. Local and national communities are in themselves eminently educative institutions. (Faure et al., 1972: 162)

7.1 Introduction In increasingly diverse and complex societies, a strong case can be made that the school as an isolated institution is insufficient as the sole locus of education and that increased complexity needs to be met by increased collaboration (Gallagher & Parker, 2007). The perspective on education has broadened, long recognizing that education also occurs outside of formal settings, either deliberately or informally (Werquin, 2010). In addition, the notion of viewing schools and their agents as forming part of broader networks, interconnected either formally or informally has gained traction (Carmichael et al., 2006). Consequently, the educational potential of school surroundings in the form of the neighboring space (Million et al., 2015) as well as the neighboring community (Sanders, 2005) have gained attention. The resulting efforts of cooperation can be viewed as partnerships (cp. Bauch, 2001), networked learning communities (Fox et al., 2007; Jopling & Spender, 2006), educational landscapes (Huber, 2014; Million et al., 2015) and others.While the underlying notions differ, the ultimate goal of these networked systems can in all cases be described as improved learning conditions for students. The impetus towards networking efforts in school-centered education has been so vivid over the last years that some have begun to ponder whether it constitutes “a fourth phase of school improvement based on collaboration” (Muijs, 2010: 1).

116  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

This chapter explains the notion of an educational landscape that is very popular in Germany and attempts to link it to the current knowledge on Professional Learning Networks. To do so, the history of educational landscapes in Germany is briefly explained (7.2), followed by a comparison between educational landscapes and Professional Learning Networks (7.3). Next, a slice of the current knowledge on the functioning and impact of educational landscapes is laid out through the presentation of three major German programs for educational landscapes as well as their evaluations (7.4 and 7.5). Finally, a case study from an educational landscape in Germany is presented (7.6), followed by a discussion and conclusion (7.7).

7.2 The term ‘educational landscape’ Compared to other OECD countries, the educational system in Germany is characterized by a categorical separation of formal and informal education. On the one hand, public schools traditionally offer a half-day curriculum. During the (early) morning hours, students are in class while lunch and later homework then often occur outside of school, being viewed as the responsibility of the family. On the other hand, German society is distinguished by a large number of not-for-profit organizations and initiatives. Participation in sports, cultural, artistic or social activities of young people takes place in the afternoon or in the evening hours. These ‘leisure activities’ – at least traditionally – are organized by organizations and associations that are independent from public schools. Thus, informal learning takes place in locations outside of the school building and thus in social contexts outside the school community. Against this background, the term ‘educational landscapes’ has a double meaning in German. First, the term serves as a rather nonspecific ‘container term’, which combines different institutions that function together to enable formal, personal or social education. In this sense, the individual actors of an educational landscape coexist independently and are relatively ‘non-networked’. Second, the term ‘communal’ or ‘local education landscape’ has a more specific meaning, as applied, for example, in the German federal policy program “12th child and youth report” from the first years of the new millennium (BMFSFJ, 2005).The program, announced by the German government, was designed to promote cooperation between providers of formal and informal learning in a communal region. Therefore, the term ‘local educational landscape’ was used to describe a functioning network of the individual educational actors and institutions. Additionally, the adjective ‘local’ shows the decisive part of municipal authorities in the concept.

7.3 Educational landscapes vs. Professional learning networks When we speak of local or municipal educational landscapes, we refer to the narrower meaning of the term. Taking a cue from Bleckmann and Durdel (2009), we define local educational landscapes as long-term networks that aim to bring about improved, coordinated educational practices, are supported by the local community

Education landscapes in Germany  117

and are managed professionally.These networks revolve around educational matters, putting the learner and her/his perspective and needs front and center.They include formal places and settings of learning as well as informal ones in a geographically restricted local area (Bleckmann & Durdel, 2009: 12, translation from German by the authors). Educational landscapes can also be defined by three dimensions of networks: first, they consist of networks between local educational actors (in a wide sense, including non-formal and informal education), second, networks between local education and local administration and third, networks between local and federal states (Duveneck 2016). As such, these networks bear similarities to extended professional learning communities (Stoll & Louis, 2007: 5) or more aptly to the extended notion of networked learning communities as the people involved are engaged (among other things) in promoting professional learning, are engaged in a collaborative, growthpromoting learner-oriented practice and work together in a collective that extend beyond schools, connecting with the community and other services (cf. Jackson & Temperley, 2007). Compared to the term ‘Professional Learning Networks’, which often focuses on teachers working together with various agents and institutions, the term ‘local educational landscape’ encompasses the idea of a comprehensive cooperation between schools, non-formal learning organizations and political actors.These notions are broader than common definitions of Professional Learning Networks but thus in line with the also broad definition used in this book and presented in the introduction. Like in Professional Learning Networks, groups engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice. However, while improved teaching and learning is also an aim of educational landscapes, the learner, not the school nor the teachers, is front and center of the concept. This results in educational landscapes often not only being comprised of teachers and school leaders, but also of social workers, educational consultants and facilitators, volunteers who work with children or young adults as well as local politicians linked to matters of education and/or youth.The inclusion of communities or municipalities in the idea of networking for education means that potential economic interests by communities or municipalities might be an influence. Eager to secure the future viability of the region, many municipalities assess their education infrastructure as a potential ‘soft local factor’ of crucial importance for economic competition. Due to this, the idea of ‘local educational landscapes’ is also related to administrative reforms at the local level and the competitiveness of municipalities and communities. Duveneck (2016) developed an analytical scheme to classify the development of the various aspects, which local landscapes of education bring together, and to study its realization in practice. To do so, Duveneck first identifies types of vertical cooperation as well as forms of horizontal networking. In Duveneck’s scheme vertical cooperation stands for networks that want to bridge transitional gaps between the regular chain of formal education. In other words, vertical cooperation improves potential gaps between kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and universities or vocational training institutions.Thus, this type of networking focuses on the streamlining of formal learning in the longitudinal direction of life. In contrast,

118  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

horizontal cooperation strives to provide a better link between formal and nonformal learning. Here, the cooperation partners want to support young people in coping with their individual lifestyle. The lifeworld of the child is considered as the starting point and permanent background of all formal and non-formal learning activities. Thus, horizontal cooperation focuses on enabling a child’s development opportunities in all areas and aims to integrate school-based learning and out-ofschool learning settings (Duveneck, 2016: 19). In addition to the classification of the vertical and horizontal ‘axes of networking’, the term ‘local education landscape’ also encompasses different levels of interaction. On a micro-level (interaction of persons) and a meso-level (interaction of organizations), types of cooperation are formed by practical and content-related actions of individuals whereas on a macro level (interaction between organizations and political bodies), the local education landscape comprises structural and strategic actions with indirect effects on children’s lives. Referring to Duveneck’s distinction between professional and organizational impulses, in Table 7.1 we offer the following scheme of local educational landscapes in Germany to the categorization of concepts and practices.

7.4 The German discourse on local educational landscapes Compared to other countries, the German discussion on local educational landscapes endeavors to bring together at least three rather independent political and scholarly discussions that revolve around the terms: •• •• ••

‘orientation on the lifeworld of young people’, as discussed in the contexts of social work; ‘learning regions’, as discussed in local and economic contexts; and ‘extensive schools’ as subjected in discussions around school development.

The so-called ‘PISA-shock’ served as the trigger for bringing together these three discourses and led to a special significance of the German concept of local educational landscapes. In 2001 the German education system achieved comparatively poor results in the OECD’s first ‘International Student Assessment Program’ (PISA) and TABLE 7.1 Categorization of concepts and practices of local educational landscapes in

Germany (Duveneck, 2016: 19) axis of networking/ Primarily vertical education along level of interaction course of life practical and content-related/networking among local educational actors structural and strategy-related/ networking between local educational actors and public politics

Primarily horizontal education within the course of a day

Education landscapes in Germany  119

the strong reaction of the German public and politicians to these unexpected results was referred to as the ‘PISA-shock’. On average, according to the OECD assessment, German school graduates had an inadequate level of education. Moreover, institutional selection mechanisms had a very early impact on the educational career of the students. Especially in the cities, these mechanisms led to a sociospatial disintegration and social exclusion (Baumheier & Warsewa, 2009: 19).The educational possibilities of the students depended to a large extent on the family background and on the economic situation of the children and therefore were very unequal (Baumert et al., 2001; Baumert & Stanat, 2002). Against the background of the growing importance of education – a significant productive force in knowledge-based societies – the attested functional deficits of the German school system for politicians and actors in the education sector appeared particularly startling (Baumheier & Warsewa, 2009: 19). It became part of the widely accepted social consensus that some significant social effort would be needed to address this major challenge. In line with this ‘PISA shock’, the Federal Government promoted the establishment of local educational landscapes in its “12th child and youth report” (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005) and assessed the further expansion of such landscapes as an important strategic task to make the educational possibilities of young people independent of their family background. In the report the term ‘local educational landscape’ is defined as “an infrastructure, underpinned by the services of schools, youth welfare services, cultural institutions, private not-for-profit organizations and communities of interest, bodies of health promotion and local commercial actors” (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005: 42, translated from German by the authors). The report looked at educational landscapes as an adequate means of implementing an “extended notion of education” (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005: 339), which could serve as a common basis for all types of professional education-related activities. Both schools and “education before, during and after school” (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005: 32) were encouraged to consider from now on the changing lifeworld of children as a starting point for all educational activities (ibid.) In this way, the functional deficits of formal schooling should be better addressed. Additionally, the interests of the municipalities had to be considered. As responsible bodies for day-care centers, family centers, facilities for children and youth work, schools, adult education centers and numerous cultural institutions, they themselves were ‘cornerstones of public infrastructure in education’ (Deutscher Städtetag, 2007). In sum, it can be said that the ‘PISA shock’ caused a jolt to the German educational debate and that the local educational landscapes gained in importance in its wake. However, the proclamation of a common and extended concept of education did not make all the differences between the discourses of origin disappear. Many of the later funding programs still showed their origin in one of the three older discussions (see part 2 of the article). In order to better understand the different roots and facets of the ‘extended concept of education’, the three discourses will be briefly presented below.

120  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

7.4.1 Professionalization of social youth work through spatial and lifeworld-orientation The discourse of youth work historically relates to the youth movements at the end of the 19th century. With the ‘discovery’ of youth as a separate phase of life, an emancipatory understanding of youth culture emerged as a counter-world to an adult and professionally oriented life design. The aim of the professional youth work, that gained a foothold at that time, was to preserve young people’s own space, which enabled them to live their own forms of expression. In the 1960s and 1970s, and in line with the expansion of state welfare, youth work became more professional and lost its counterpart-character. Youth work has been accepted by the municipal authorities as being part of the socially anchored infrastructure. At the same time, the administration was giving a more pragmatic mandate to it. As a place of social learning, youth work could establish itself in contrast to the qualification-oriented requirements of the school (Böhnisch & Münchmeier, 1987: 19ff.).This structural change in youth work has been accompanied by some conceptual changes and crises in the professional understanding of youth workers. It varied between the alternatives of ‘formal education or social work’, ‘service or role model’ and ‘art of expert or art of all’. But from the 1970s onward, a professional understanding emerged, according to which youth work was a decisive advocate for young people. The direct lifeworld (Schütz & Luckmann, 1979; Berger & Luckmann, 2013; Bourdieu & Accardo, 1997) of children and adolescents, in other words their immediate surroundings and what they perceive, was regarded as a starting point for all professional interventions. In the sense of a so-called lifeworld-orientation (Thiersch, 1986), youth workers perceive the direct surroundings of young people as a whole and then counteract the selection effects of the formal education system. Thus, in the debates of outof-school youth social work, the lifeworld-orientation and the critical reflection of the selection effects of spatial and social environments – as they were later included in the expanded concept of education – had already been ‘state of the art’ for several decades (Böhnisch & Münchmeier, 1990; Deinet et al., 2002). The surge of the term ‘local education landscape’ from 2005 onwards can therefore be understood as being part of a much broader discussion, which focuses on the empowerment of the individual and the bridging of gaps between educational institutions which always cover only a part of the learning activity of a person (Vogel & Oel, 1966).

7.4.2 Learning regions Over the course of the ‘new public management’ and independently of the professionalization debates in the extracurricular youth work, municipalities (re-) discovered education as a competitive location factor. They recognized that if perceived as an active place of education they are more attractive and better equipped for demographic change.There was also the hope that a policy of “connections instead

Education landscapes in Germany  121

of exclusions” (Deutscher Städtetag, 2007: 2) would reduce the financial burden of social transfers within the municipality (Bleckmann & Durdel, 2009: 11). The concept of learning regions intended that all providers of education within a county – schools, counseling centers, career services, small and medium-sized enterprises, private educational initiatives, public education institutions from municipal library to the university, training departments of large companies or commercial suppliers of teaching materials – should work together to increase the quality of life and raise the attractiveness and competitiveness of the region. The supporters of this idea of networking sought to win an economically “superior fitness” (George et al., 2009: 15). The intent was to enhance and increase learning opportunities through joint projects, educational events or via shared databases and websites. Another aim was to encourage lifelong learning and participation in education for as many people as possible. “New learning environments” (Pekince et al., 2009: 103) and “transparent educational landscapes” (Strobel et al., 2009: 84ff.) were supposed to offer new learning incentives. In the sense of “transition management” (Pilz et al., 2009: 129), these new structures were intended to help bridge the existing gaps between educational offers. Overall, it can be said that many municipalities had already played an active role in promoting the networking of educational actors before the PISA shock. The ‘extended concept of education’ reflected these efforts. The deliberate combination of education, trade and entertainment through a network perspective was also considered critical. Faulstich, for example, pointed out that the coordination of completely heterogeneous projects with regard to education was clearly preceded by economic considerations (Faulstich, 2003: 120f.).

7.4.3 Extended schools For schools, the idea of improving the quality of formal education through networking with external partners, was already known before the PISA-shock. As early as 1995, ‘open schools’ and ‘community education’ were highlighted in a frequently cited expert report by the North Rhine-Westphalian Education Commission (“Future of Education – School of the Future”, Bildungskommission NordrheinWestfalen, 1995), thus reviving concepts from the 1980s (Solzbacher, 2007: S.33). Even the concept of local education was mentioned, already being understood as the interweaving of horizontal and vertical networks. Nevertheless, the subsequent efforts for reforms mainly targeted the school as primary protagonist. Above all, the school’s inner structure and self-understanding were regarded as a necessity of reform. Schools should develop towards a ‘learning organization’ (Senge, 1990, 2000) and be understood as “houses of learning” in order to be able to integrate outside school offers such as homework or leisure activities (Wilke, 2000: 6). Also, the control mechanisms of the public school system were considered outdated. The schools should be strengthened in its own responsibility and take over more decision-making competencies for the areas organization, personnel and finances. Thirdly, schools should be given more sovereignty in the design of their

122  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

curriculum in order to develop their own profile and enable more flexibility in everyday school life. Summing up, it can be stated that – within the framework of the above-mentioned very specific school reform efforts – in the first instance a very schoolcentered understanding of the networking arose.

7.5 Major programs in Germany regarding educational landscapes As explained in Section 7.4, efforts to establish networks in and around schools in Germany were shaped by major initiatives from either the government or sizeable charitable foundations. Possibly due to the scope of these programs and the experimental nature that surrounded the notion of networks in education, these programs were usually accompanied by research to assess their effects.When viewed in conjunction, the programs and their evaluations allow for a first oversight of how the idea of networks or educational landscapes in Germany was implemented in practice, what impact this had and what challenges and deficits accompanied these efforts. In this section, three major initiatives in Germany designed to create educational landscapes are presented in chronological order. This includes the aim of the programs as well as their development and evaluation.

7.5.1 Lebenswelt Schule (‘Lifeworld School’, translated by the authors) The program Lebenswelt Schule (Lifeworld School, translated by the authors) ran from 2008 to 2012. It was funded by the Jacobs Foundation and the German Children and Youth Foundation (DKJS) and supported four communities in Germany in their efforts to establish local educational landscapes over the course of four years. The aims of the program were to change educational practices, to establish local educational landscapes and to generate knowledge that is relevant beyond the four communities that were supported by the programs.The program defined four characteristic principles: •• •• •• ••

The schools are in the center of the program. The perspective of the learners (children) matters. Educational landscapes are created from the bottom up. It’s about responsibility, not jurisdiction. (Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung & Jacobs Foundation, 2008a: 2–3).

The cornerstone of the program was that professionals from the schools worked together with professionals outside the schools (be it from other schools or from other institutions close to matters of education) to establish networks centered on improving the learning opportunities for children (Schubert & Puskeppeleit, 2012). Consequently, the communities involved varied with regard to how they chose to implement the program and what they focused on. The program did not

Education landscapes in Germany  123

fund schools directly, but instead financially supported four communities. Within those four communities, schools made up the focal points, however.The four communities were mainly supported through grants, facilitators, organized events for networking and exchange as well as through providing a scientific evaluation of the entire program (Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung & Alban, 2010: 4–5). School staff worked together with staff from either other schools or institutions close to the educational sector to improve learning opportunities for children. This included changing current teaching practices and widening the perspective towards learning to include not only what happens in school(s), but also outside of schools. The program was evaluated along two strands (Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung & Jacobs Foundation, 2008b: 10): a self-evaluation where the persons involved in each community reflected on their progress and whether they were on the path of reaching the goals they had set. The second strand consisted of an external evaluation, which was led by researchers from the Cologne University of Applied Sciences. Throughout the duration of the program, they repeatedly conducted document analyses as well as semi-structured interviews with all key stakeholders involved in the program. They tried to employ a local perspective (how is community x developing?) as well as a broad perspective (how is the program overall developing?). The evaluation (Schubert et al., 2010) showed that the program did succeed in changing practices at school. Schools collaborated more strongly with partners from other schools and with partners from other educational institutions. However, there were challenges in establishing a common understanding across all parties involved; horizontal networking was seen as particularly challenging as out-ofschool institutions often operated differently from schools and brought with them another culture. Facilitators were viewed as very valuable in working towards a common understanding. It was also deemed crucial that there was a project leader that speared on the efforts of establishing and maintaining collaboration in the respective networks.The evaluation also indicated, however, that the duration of the program was not sufficient to implement a lasting change of educational practices. An identified risk in that regard was that of falling into the project-trap: a project develops successfully, but dies down after the project funding runs out. In addition, the self-evaluation was viewed as too much of a burden by many, especially because there were no fixed, detailed self-evaluation systems in place (Schubert & Puskeppeleit, 2012: 99). Finally, there were some concerns that schools would treat partners from outside of schools as second-class partners.

7.5.2 Regionale Bildungsnetzwerke NRW (‘Regional education networks North Rhine-Westphalia’, translated by the authors) The program Regionale Bildungsnetzwerke NRW was started in 2008 by the Ministry of School and Further Education in North Rhine-Westphalia. Its origins can be traced back to earlier programs in the 1990s and early 2000s.The program is openended, its goals are to ensure that the regional educational offerings provide optimal

124  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

individual promotion for all children and young adults, to improve the school and curriculum development in all schools of the region by implementing counselingand support systems and to systematically initiate and deepen the cooperation between all education actors of the region (Rolff, 2013, 2014). To reach those goals the Ministry of School and Further Education established cooperation agreements with different regions in North Rhine-Westphalia; with four regions during the pilot phase, with 16 during the first evaluation phase and currently with 42 different regions (Stern, 2017). The cooperation agreements are focused on three goals: 1 Ensuring the optimal, individual support of children and adolescents, making optimal use of available resources and to initiate or intensify horizontal and vertical networks; 2 Strengthening school improvement and the improvement of classroom practices through establishing a system of counsel and support on the local (communal) level; and 3 Systematically expanding cooperation and networking structures on the local (communal) level between all agents and institutions of education, intensifying and thus improving planning and coordination between all domains of education (Rolff, 2014: 11) In each region, a steering committee, an education conference and a regional office usually called Regionales Bildungsbüro (regional education office) were established. These offices were in charge of coordinating the various efforts of exchange. Each region focused on different fields of activity based upon the needs of the region (Rolff, 2013, 2014). While the program is intended to be open ended, a first evaluation of the program was conducted in July 2013 and followed up on in 2014 (Rolff, 2013, 2014). To evaluate the program the work group evaluation defined 8 success criteria. The evaluation was a four-step process: first, an online survey of key partners in the regional education network was conducted; second, a systematic individual reflection of each steering committee upon the success criteria; third, a discussion of the results of step one and two, by the steering committee through a rating conference; and last, the writing of a self-report. Afterwards, the reports were analyzed and combined into an overall assessment (Rolff, 2013, 2014). Overall the program was rated favorably by the partners of the networks. Two thirds are highly motivated, 84% found the exchange with others fruitful and three quarters consider the program to have a positive benefit/cost ratio (Rolff, 2013, 2014). One point of criticism was that many networks were viewed as schoolcentric; the second evaluation concluded, however, that this was changing over time with the networks becoming broader (Rolff, 2014, 42; 50). Even though the answers varied between the regions and it was found that there is still room for improvement, Rolff (2013, 2014) concludes that the regional network structure is a fitting organization form for those kinds of communities and a positive trendsetter for the future.

Education landscapes in Germany  125

7.5.3 Lernen vor Ort (‘Learning locally’, translated by the authors) The program Lernen vor Ort (‘Learning locally’, translated by the authors) was launched by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and ran between 2009 and 2014. It had a funding volume of about 100 million Euros (Busemeyer & Vossiek, 2015: 10). The program targeted communities and invited them to compete for support to create networks that promoted and sustained collaboration between various local stakeholders in the educational realm and to create systems to monitor and manage education. In this program, 40 communities were supported during the first phase (2009–2012), 35 of those were also supported during the second and final phase of the program (2012–2014, Lindner et al., 2015: 69). The program consisted of four pillars or core fields: •• •• •• ••

local education management local educational monitoring educational consulting management of transition processes. (Busemeyer & Vossiek, 2015: 10)

The program was evaluated through several means: document analyses, exploratory interviews with stakeholders of the program as well as repeated online surveys and case studies of 14 selected communities (Lindner et al., 2016: 54–55). The accompanying study identified numerous factors that influenced the impact of the program, among them “clear communication strategies, broad stakeholder involvement in governing bodies and the implementation of concrete goals and projects. Further factors were local socio-economic background conditions, financial and administrative capacities, previous experiences with educational monitoring and management, the presence of a culture of cooperation and the differences in political structures and institutions at the municipal level” (Busemeyer & Vossiek, 2015: 8). In Table 7.2, the three case study examples outlined above (7.5.1 to 7.5.3) are now categorized according to Duveneck’s (2016) criteria of concepts and practices.

TABLE 7.2 Categorization of concepts and practices of local educational landscapes in

Germany with case studies axis of networking Primarily vertical education along course of life level of interaction practical and content-related networking among local educational actors structural and strategy-related networking between local educational actors and public politics

Primarily horizontal education within the course of a day Regionale Bildungsnetzwerke Lebenswelt Schule NRW

Lernen vor Ort

126  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

7.6 Case study ‘Campus Rütli’ Even in cases where they advocate bottom-up approaches, major programs to launch educational landscapes bring with them a certain image and thus influence on the projects they sponsor. Furthermore, the programs presented so far were presented from a perspective that is far removed from the individual networks. To gain a deeper understanding ‘up close’, the implementation of educational landscapes is analyzed in an empirical case study with a wider analytical focus (Duveneck, 2016). The case presented is the Campus Rütli in Berlin-Neukölln, Germany. In contrast to what has been presented in this chapter so far, Campus Rütli does not build on prior programs, but has been established in reaction to tremendous local social problems. Further, social inequality and exclusion as the main driver of educational landscape (see Section 7.2) is particularly concentrated here. Neukölln is a socially deprived, multicultural district in Berlin. In 2006, the district became a nationwide synonym for the failure of the school system, school violence, and failed integration after teachers at a lower secondary school wrote a public letter highlighting the tremendous problems within the school due to segregation and underfunding. Following some short-term measures, in 2008 the mayor presented a concept to make the school part of a local educational project with other institutions in ‘RütliStreet’, bearing all the marks of an educational landscape as defined in the beginning of this chapter and aiming at ‘integration through education’.

7.6.1 Concept: Comprehensive approach The concept of the Campus Rütli claims to provide better education for the young people by merging the separate educational actors in the Rütli-Street into one comprehensive ‘campus’. For this purpose, governance structures have been installed to create networks among the local educational actors and between educational practice and local administration along the vertical and horizontal axis. In reaction to the scandal noted above, the federal state converted the RütliSchool and the neighboring elementary and middle secondary school into one comprehensive school. The concept aimed at a “unified place of learning which enables young people to pursue their entire school careers from preschool to vocational training within a single space” (Local District of Neukölln, n.d.), showing a strong orientation towards the formal educational biography and vertical networking. Above that, another core idea was “to create a new social space … a comprehensive and integrated socialization- and education offering” (Local District of Neukölln, n.d.). This wide understanding of education beyond school and formal education is based on horizontal networks with settings for non-formal learning such as youth centers, but also settings for informal education such as a recreational playground and non-educational actors such as the health office for children and youth. On the administrative level, the local state established new administrative structures for educational management on the vertical axis to overcome the given

Education landscapes in Germany  127

separation. Firstly, the mayor set up a steering committee composed of representatives from the district, but also the federal school administration, service providers, and foundations, for official decision-making. Next, a ‘campus administration’ was established to have a unified management of the various institutions. While it has the right to manage the youth center and to draw up the contracts with service providers, in other areas such as the child and youth health service, the school authority can only agree on informal cooperation. Additionally, the creation of local governance structures was fostered by two project leaders employed by the local district. The horizontal networking for a participatory organization of education also plays a crucial role in the concept. This is because the coordinated action of the different educators, teachers and counselors is designed to generate the highest possible level of support for parents, children and young people, who are invited to participate in shaping this process. In the long run, the local educational network is supposed to become a committee to ensure a more practice- and needs-based organization of education.

7.6.2 Implementation: Focus on vertical networking The implementation has been reconstructed based on 15 expert-interviews with involved actors from early childcare centers, a youth center, the public health service for children and youth, vocational promotion, the municipal school for music, the community college, the project and administrative leaders, local educational networks and a parents’ initiative. The interviews have been systematically condensed (Meuser & Nagel, 1991) to identify the core concepts. The perspectives on practices indicate a bias on vertical networking. Regarding the focus on formal education, the project showed a strong focus on school. For example, the steering committee focused solely on new buildings for establishing a comprehensive school. The campus-administration, supposed to represent all involved institutions, was part of the school department and the pedagogical project leader was a former principal. Further, the educational networking was considered to only focus on the formal educational biography. For example, the head of the school appreciated the structures and networks to be supportive: “It creates opportunities.” The head of the childcare service also felt supported, but particularly so with regard to the cooperation with the school which in Berlin is obligatory for childcare centers anyway. She considered the project to be an “environment in which current reforms in early childcare are esteemed” (head of early childcare). The heads of the youth center, though, felt that in the context of the project, they became “servants of the school” (head of the youth center). Here, the local state’s impact becomes particularly visible: on the practical level, the youth center had worked with the school for years, but autonomously, without formal obligation. After the Campus-Administration was installed, the youth center was shifted from the youth department to the school department, with serious impact on their professional work: in formal contracts, the school authority defined one-sidedly what youth work had to fulfill, for example to support the school’s technical and

128  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

scientific education and to follow the school’s cultural education. The heads of the youth center ended their engagement as within the project, horizontal networking became more complicated than supported: non-formal education felt not appreciated but instrumentalized. Regarding the organizational aspects, structures for local educational management allowed the integration of local actors and their resources into the district’s project but without decision-making powers. Although many out-of-school practitioners invested so much time that a serious overload was mentioned in almost every interview, their attempts at self-organization were repelled by the mayor. Hence, networking remained top-down (or from the school outwards to other actors) as their contributions and their willingness to give parts of their autonomy to the common project were not compensated by participation in strategic decision-making.Young people and their parents were not integrated in the organization of local education.

7.6.3 Explanation: Vertical networking in the line of competitiveness To understand the impact of the local commune or municipality on the selective implementation of the concept of educational landscapes, Duveneck developed a reconstructive approach to identify its implementation.The theoretical background is the concept of the ‘Entrepreneurial City’ from David Harvey (1989). This states that local municipalities act under conditions of interurban competition which deeply shape or restrict their politics. Following the reduction of public funds and redistributive means during the crisis of the welfare state, cities and districts have to generate income themselves by competing for economic high performers and acting efficiently, like enterprises in a free market. Otherwise, they run the risk to enter a socio-economic downwards spiral. The focus on vertical networking along the formal educational biography can be reduced to the role of childcare and formal education as competition factor to attract middle-class families. In the context of knowledge-based societies, formal educational success became more important for future life chances and therefore, for middle-class parents’ choice of their place of residence, as many studies from urban sociology show (e.g. Bunar, 2010; Maloutas, 2007; Raveaud & Zanten, 2007). With regard to the high proportion of socially deprived inhabitants and the image loss caused by the scandal in 2006, for the majority of middle-class parents, Neukölln’s schools were not attractive. Families with an ‘alternative’ background and/or lifestyle were more favorable towards those schools, however. As they, in turn, raise the attraction for middle-class parents in general and thereby induce a process of social upgrading (Hamnett, 1991; Lee et al., 2010), they are a preferred target group for socially deprived districts. The reconstructive analysis shows that the extended school concept meets the preferences of alternative parents for education (Cucchiara & Horvat, 2009; Merkle & Henry-Huthmacher, 2010). Whereas other parents might avoid schools in multicultural, socially mixed neighborhoods, alternative middle-class parents who

Education landscapes in Germany  129

already live there and additionally, strive for educational justice (Merkle & HenryHuthmacher, 2010: 201) are open towards this kind of school (Cucchiara & Horvat, 2009: 975; Reay et al., 2011: 1042).The research case matches their preferences: First, due to the media attention the school attracted in 2006, it is known as a diverse, multicultural school. Further, the projects’ social-integrative claim and its inclusion of various educational institutions correspond to the target group’s interest in alternative, progressive types of schools. Though, alternative middle-class parents do not want to sacrifice their children for their political convictions. Hence, the schools still have to match a certain level of middle-class expectations (Cucchiara & Horvat, 2009: 986). Analyses reveal the orientation for example by installing an upper secondary track to providing to graduate on A-Level. Further, the participatory structures allow the district to keep in touch with middle-class parents’ preferences. In the end, the project successfully combines alternative middle class parents’ contradictory preferences for multicultural schools with an orientation towards middleclass expectations. In this sense, vertical educational networking allows making use of underdeveloped potentials of non-formal education in the sense of competition. As middle-class families support public institutions of non-formal education but do not use them intensely, horizontal networking remains mostly on the level of concept. Focusing on horizontal networking in practice appears not to be affordable, as young people from socially deprived families, who would stand to benefit the most, are perceived as more of a threat than an asset to local competitiveness. The focus on local educational management can also be reduced to conditions of interurban competition. In this regard, it is important to consider that financial austerity is forcing municipalities to reduce public funding. In consequence, particularly socially deprived municipalities, which are highly underfunded, do not have any capacities for extra funding beyond their duties. Instead, there is a strong demand for cost-neutral policy models (Häußermann et al., 2008: 202). The participatory network structures work in this sense:They allow integrating local actors and their extra resources in the local educational project to compensate for underfunding of the public education system. In this sense, they are a sign of agency even under conditions of austerity. Likewise, austere conditions also explain why participation in decision-making was refused: As Peck (2012) demonstrates, austerity limits its scope to entrepreneurial politics for competitive advantages. With reference to financial constraints, political alternatives that do not follow this imperative but other premises seem to be unaffordable and therefore, not realizable. The local actors were striving for a context-sensitive organization of education.This was oriented towards the actual local needs but not towards competitiveness. Due to this, there is no space for its realization. On that base, their participation in official decision-making does not make any sense. Hence, there is evidence that in this aspect as well, the reduction to vertical educational or school-centric networking is shaped by conditions of interurban competition. The analysis shows strong evidence that the selective implementation of the research case is shaped by entrepreneurial local politics. Under conditions of competition, for local municipal states, networking is an effective instrument to unfold

130  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

new, underdeveloped potentials for competitiveness along the formal educational biography, focusing first and foremost on improved teaching practices and an increase in the quality and prestige of schooling. Horizontal networking appears not to be affordable for a participative organization of education even if all involved actors are highly motivated.This kind of educational network on a local scale therefore faces the challenge of surpassing its restrictions with regard to participation with decision-making powers.

7.7 Professional learning networks and educational landscapes: Discussion and conclusion As presented earlier in this chapter, there is substantive overlap between the idea of Professional Learning Networks and educational landscapes. As demonstrated, the idea of educational landscapes is in its core a network idea, but is bigger and broader in scope than the idea of professional educational networks.While improved school practices are pillars of both ideas, they are but one of several pillars of the idea of educational landscapes. The restructuring of public administration, the installation of governance-structure, the inclusion of local municipalities in the development of educational offers are features not found in Professional Learning Networks. Landscapes can however be viewed as applying the idea of a Professional Learning Network to an entire local educational system. They can also be attributed to a desire to do away with patchwork and piecemeal solutions and instead develop one coherent approach around the needs of the learner. What this chapter has also shown is that the idea of educational landscapes might resemble the notion of Professional Learning Networks even more in practice than it does in theory. Whether it is in large-scale initiatives or in local needs-based educational landscapes, the topic of being school-centric is present. As the case study showed, under conditions of interurban competition, logic shapes implementation and selectivity. The result is that networking and change of practices among school staff (be it from one school or from several, cooperating schools) seems feasible, but networking and change of practices involving agents from schools and from outside of schools seems more challenging. This begs the question of how to bypass these dynamics to unfold the potentials of horizontal networking. A possible path could be to take the more focused notion of a Professional Learning Network and slowly widen it to gradually encompass more agents, leaving out aspects of local educational management altogether. Looking at Professional Learning Networks, a gentle expansion of the concept towards the notion of educational landscapes could provide for a more comprehensive change of practices and deeper learning for those involved.

References Bauch, P. A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221. Baumert, J., & Stanat, P. (2002). PISA 2000. Erste Ergebnisse und die Identifikation von Handlungsfeldern. Schulmanagement, 33, 30–32.

Education landscapes in Germany  131

Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., … Weiß, M. (Eds.). (2001). PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Baumheier, U., & Warsewa, G. (2009). Vernetzte Bildungslandschaften: Internationale Erfahrungen und Stand der deutschen Entwicklung. In Lokale Bildungslandschaften. Perspektiven für Ganztagsschulen und Kommunen (pp. 19–36). Wiesbaden: Springer. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann,T. (2013). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit (25. Aufl, Vol. 6623). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. Retrieved from http:// gso.gbv.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=779348087 Bildungskommission Nordrhein-Westfalen. (1995). Zukunft der Schule. Schule der Zukunft. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Bleckmann, P., & Durdel,A. (2009). Einführung: Lokale Bildungslandschaften – die zweifache Öffnung. In P. Bleckmann & A. Durdel (Eds.), Lokale Bildungslandschaften (pp. 11–16). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Retrieved from http://link.springer. com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-531-91857-0_1 Böhnisch, L., & Münchmeier, R. (1987). Wozu Jugendarbeit?: Orientierungen für Ausbildung, Fortbildung und Praxis. Weinheim: Juventa-Verlag. Böhnisch, L., & Münchmeier, R. (1990). Pädagogik des Jugendraums: zur Begründung und Praxis einer sozialräumlichen Jugendpädagogik. Weinheim: Juventa-Verl. Bourdieu, P., & Accardo, A. (1997). Das Elend der Welt: Zeugnisse und Diagnosen alltäglichen Leidens an der Gesellschaft. Konstanz: UVK. Bunar, N. (2010). Choosing for quality or inequality: Current perspectives on the implementation of school choice policy in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 1–18. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (Ed.). (2005). Zwölfter Kinder- und Jugendbericht – Bericht über die Lebenssituation junger Menschen und die Leistungen der Kinder und Jugendhilfe in Deutschland. Berlin. Retrieved from www. bmfsfj.de/doku/Publikationen/kjb/data/download/kjb_060228_ak3.pdf Busemeyer, M. R., & Vossiek, J. (2015). Reforming Education Governance Through Local Capacity-Building: A Case Study of the “Learning Locally” Programme in Germany (OECD Education Working Papers No. 113). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js6bhl2mxjg-en Carmichael, P., Fox,A., McCormick, R., Procter, R., & Honour, L. (2006).Teachers’ networks in and out of school. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 217–234. Cucchiara, M. B., & Horvat, E. M. (2009). Perils and promises: Middle-class parental involvement in urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 974–1004. Deinet, U., Krisch, R., & Berse, C. (2002). Der sozialräumliche Blick der Jugendarbeit: Methoden und Bausteine zur Konzeptentwicklung und Qualifizierung. Opladen: Leske Budrich. Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung, & Alban, C. (2010). LWS_Broschuere_2010. pdf. Berlin: Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung. Retrieved from www.lokalebildungslandschaften.de/fileadmin/bildungslandschaften/Materialien/Publikationen/ LWS_Broschuere_2010.pdf Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung, & Jacobs Foundation. (2008a). Lebenswelt Schule – Ein gemeinsames Programm der Deutschen Kinder- und Jugendstiftung und der Jacobs Foundation. Berlin. Retrieved from www.lokale-bildungslandschaften.de/fileadmin/ bildungslandschaften/Materialien/Publikationen/LWS_Broschuere.pdf Deutsche Kinder- und Jugendstiftung, & Jacobs Foundation. (2008b). Lebenswelt Schule – Konzept. Berlin. Retrieved from www.lokale-bildungslandschaften.de/fileadmin/ bildungslandschaften/Materialien/Publikationen/LWS_Konzeptbroschuere.pdf

132  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

Deutscher Städtetag. (2007). Aachener Erklärung des Deutschen Städtetages anlässlich des Kongresses “Bildung in der Stadt” am 22./23. November 2007. Declaration, Jena. Retrieved from www.jena.de/fm/1727/aachener_erklaerung.pdf Duveneck, A. (2016). Bildungslandschaften verstehen: zum Einfluss von Wettbewerbsbedingungen auf die Praxis (1st edn). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Faulstich, P. (2003). “Bildungsmanagement” im vernetzten Support. In W. Gieseke (Ed.), Institutionelle Innensichten der Weiterbildung (pp. 111–128). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Retrieved from \\psf\Home\Desktop\%EF%80%A8\(Gm18) Literatur\Kruegers Literaturverwaltung (C5)\Krügers Literaturverwaltung c5\Citavi Attachments\Gieseke (2003) Institutionelle Innenansichten.pdf Faure, E., Herrera, F., Kaddoura, A.-R., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A.V., Rahnema, M., & Ward, F. C. (Eds.). (1972). Learning to Be:The World of Education Today and Tomorrow. Paris: Unesco. Fox, A., Haddock, J., & Smith, T. (2007). A network biography: Reflecting on a journey from birth to maturity of a networked learning community1. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 287–306. Gallagher, N., & Parker, S. (2007). Introduction. In N. Gallagher & S. Parker (Eds.), The Collaborative State: How Working Together Can Transform Public Services (pp. 13–23). London: Demos. George,W., Bonow, M., &Weber, H. O. (2009). RegionalesWissens- und Bildungsmanagement als Element der Regionalentwickung. In W. George & M. Bonow (Eds.), Regionales Bildungs-und Wissensmanagement (pp. 13–34). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Hamnett, C. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: The explanation of gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16(2), 173–189. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17. Häußermann, H., Läpple, D., & Siebel, W. (2008). Stadtpolitik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Huber, S. G. (Ed.). (2014). Kooperative Bildungslandschaften – Netzwerke(n) im und mit System. Köln: WoltersKluwer. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas (pp. 45–62). New York: Open University Press. Jopling, M., & Spender, B. (2006). Leadership in School Networks: Findings from the Networked Learning Communities programme. Management in Education, 20(3), 20–23. Lee, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (Eds.). (2010). The Gentrification Reader. London; New York: Routledge. Lindner, M., Niedlich, S., Klausing, J., Lüthi, K., & Brüsemeister, T. (2015). On creating education management arenas in Learning Locally. Journal for Educational Research Online/ Journal Für Bildungsforschung Online, 7(1), 68–93. Lindner, M., Niedlich, S., Klausing, J., Lüthi, K., & Brüsemeister, T. (2016). Zum Aufbau von Arenen des Bildungsmanagements in Lernen vor Ort. In Kommunales Bildungsmanagement als sozialer Prozess (pp. 47–73). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Local District of Neukölln. (n.d.). The Campus Rütli pilot project – situating “One Square Kilometer of Education” in the educational landscape of the Reuter neighbourhood in the north of Berlin’s Neukölln disctrict. Retrieved from http://campusruetli.de/cr2uploads/2014.10/CR2info.pdf Maloutas, T. (2007). Middle class education strategies and residential segregation in Athens. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 49–68. Merkle, T., & Henry-Huthmacher, C. (2010). Eltern unter Druck: Selbstverständnisse, Befindlichkeiten und Bedürfnisse von Eltern in verschiedenen Lebenswelten. (M. Borchard & C. Wippermann, Eds.). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

Education landscapes in Germany  133

Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews–vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen(pp. 441–471). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Million, A., Heinrich, A. J., & Coelen, T. (2015). Educational landscapes and urban development: Contextual and spatial interfaces and linkages. Planning Practice & Research, 30(5), 587–601. Muijs, D. (2010). A fourth phase of school improvement? Introduction to the special issue on networking and collaboration for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 1–3. Peck, J. (2012). Austerity urbanism. City, 16(6), 626–655. Pekince, N., Schönfeld, P., Stobel, C., Schneider, B., & Holick, M. (2009). Neue Lernwelten und Lernzentren - Bildungsmöglichkeiten eröffnen. In C. Emminghaus & R. Tippelt (Eds.), Lebenslanges Lernen in regionalen Netzwerken verwirklichen.Abschließende Ergebnisse zum Programm “Lernende Regionen - Förderung von Netzwerken” (pp. 103–128). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Pilz, S., Schönfeld, P., Lindner, M., & Niedlich, S. (2009). Übergangsmanagement Lebenslanges Lernen durch interorganisationale Kooperatioin fördern. In C. Emminghaus & R.Tippelt (Eds.), Lebenslanges Lernen in regionalen Netzwerken verwirklichen.Abschließende Ergebnisse zum Programm “Lernende Regionen - Förderung von Netzwerken” (pp. 129–148). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Raveaud, M., & Zanten, A. van. (2007). Choosing the local school: Middle class parents’ values and social and ethnic mix in London and Paris. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 107–124. Reay, D., Crozier, G., & James, D. (2011). White Middle-Class Identities and Urban Schooling. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Rolff, H.G. (2013). Auswertung der Evaluation und Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Regionalen Bildungsnetzwerke in NRW. Wissenschaftliche Expertise I. Rolff, H.G. (2014).Auswertung der Evaluation und Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Regionalen Bildungsnetzwerke in NRW. Wissenschaftliche Expertise II. Retrieved from www.mfkjks.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/auswertung_regionale_bildungs netzwerke.pdf Sanders, M. G. (2005). Building School-Community Partnerships: Collaboration for Student Success. Corwin Press. Schubert, H., & Puskeppeleit, M. (2012). Qualitätsentwicklung in Bildungslandschaften. In P. Bleckmann & V. Schmidt (Eds.), Bildungslandschaften (pp. 98–114). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Schubert, H., Rädler, M., Schiller, K., & Schmager, S. (2010). Externe Evaluation des Programms ‘Lebenswelt Schule’. Evaluationsphase II: 2010 bis 2011. Köln: Fakultät für Angewandte Sozialwissenschaften Fachhochschule Köln. Schütz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1979). Strukturen der Lebenswelt (Vol.). Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp. Retrieved from http://gso.gbv.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=223272981 Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Business. Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that Learn (1st Currency pbk). New York: Doubleday. Solzbacher, C. (2007). Bildungsnetzwerke und regionale Bildungslandschaften: Ziele und Konzepte, Aufgaben und Prozess. München: Luchterhand. Stern, C. (2017, March 15). Übersichtskarte der Regionalen Bildungsnetzwerke in NRW. Retrieved from www.regionale.bildungsnetzwerke.nrw.de/Regionale-Bildungsnetzwerke /%C3%9Cbersicht/ Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas (pp. 1–13). New York: Open University Press.

134  Tulowitzki, Duveneck and Krüger

Strobel, C., Pekince, N., Dubiel, G., Lindner, M., & Pilz, S. (2009). Bildungsberatung regionale Transparenz verbessern. In C. Emminghaus & R. Tippelt (Eds.), Lebenslanges Lernen in regionalen Netzwerken verwirklichen.Abschließende Ergebnisse zum Programm “Lernende Regionen – Förderung von Netzwerken” (pp. 79–102). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Thiersch, H. (1986). Die Erfahrung der Wirklichkeit: Perspektiven einer alltagsorientierten Sozialpädagogik. Weinheim: Juventa-Verl. Vogel, M. R., & Oel, P. (1966). Gemeinde und Gemeinschaftshandeln: zur Analyse der Begriffe Community Organization und Community Development (H. Muthesius, Ed.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Ed.). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/ book/9789264063853-en Wilke, P. (2000). Schule ist Zukunft! Fünf Jahre Denkschrift “Zukunft der Bildung – Schule der Zukunft”– Eine Veranstaltung der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung am 6. December 1999 in Düsseldorf (p. 76). Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

8 A LESSON STUDY PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NETWORK IN SECONDARY EDUCATION Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

8.1 Introduction In this chapter, we focus on a specific type of a Professional Learning Network: a Lesson Study Professional Learning Network (PLN). Lesson Study is a specific approach for teacher learning that originated in Japan and was recently introduced in the Netherlands. In Lesson Study, teachers collaboratively plan a research lesson, observe this lesson live, collect data and analyze these data together to improve students’ learning (Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002). Lesson Study is characterized by active collaboration and research; it is practice-based, student-oriented and teacher-directed. These characteristics are very similar to those of effective professional development as identified in several review studies (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Kooy & Van Veen, 2012). Lesson Study is, therefore, a theoretically strong, professional development approach. Although its impact is mainly based on small-scale qualitative research, it also appears to be a powerful tool for teachers to improve their teaching practice (Huang & Shimizu, 2016; Xu & Pedder, 2014). However promising a new professional development initiative might be theoretically and empirically, the application of Lesson Study in the Dutch context is not self-evident (Verhoef et al., 2014). Professional development practices in the Netherlands are traditionally top-down, imposed quick fix and one shot workshops, conferences and seminars, and, to a lesser degree, long-term teacher-directed, ­practice-based collaboration and research (Onderwijscoöperatie, 2016). Moreover, a student-based orientation is not a common practice for Dutch teachers (De Vries et al., 2013). Just as in other Western European countries, work pressure in schools is high (Dutch Schools Inspectorate, 2016). The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to explore the potential of networked Lesson Study for the Dutch context (cf. Cajkler et al., 2014). The Lesson Study PLN discussed in this chapter is a crossschool PLN for Dutch as a first language. The main question addressed by this

136  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

chapter is: What are the effects of a Lesson Study PLN as a new approach for teacher learning, and what factors influence these effects? Insight into these aspects of Lesson Study can contribute to explaining and improving the introduction and integration of Lesson Study into Dutch schools and the Dutch educational system. Moreover, this chapter provides in-depth insight into the process and outcomes of a cross-school team of teachers working on the same goal. This chapter is structured as follows: first, we discuss the concept of teacher learning in general (8.2), then focus on Lesson Study in particular (8.2.1), and discuss factors related to its successful implementation (8.2.2). Next, we will describe the specific Lesson Study PLN in the Netherlands, first the context (8.3), then the specific Lesson Study PLN (8.3.1) and how it worked during two school years (8.3.2) Furthermore, we will discuss the reported effects of this Lesson Study PLN (8.4), and the factors that supported or hindered its work (8.5). The chapter will conclude with a section discussing the main lessons learned from this chapter (8.6).

8.2 Teacher learning In the first 60–70 years of the last century, teacher learning was not a topic in itself (Scheerens, 2010; Villegas-Reimers, 2003). Only in the 1980s, and as a result of changing economic, social and educational developments, were teachers gradually expected to continue to learn over the course of their careers (Beijaard et al., 2007; Hargreaves, 2000). The previously mentioned (and often still popular) ‘workshop, conference and seminar’ tradition of professional development dates from this period. The courses offered to teachers most often were fragmented, disconnected and irrelevant to the real problems of their classroom practice (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2010). Nowadays, teachers are viewed as learning-oriented and adaptive experts. Teachers are supposed to be able to teach increasingly diverse sets of learners, and to be knowledgeable about student learning, competent in complex academic content and skillful in the craft of teaching (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999;Wei et al., 2009). Because the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for this complex teaching profession cannot be developed fully in initial teacher education programs (FeimanNemser, 2001; Hammerness et al., 2005), career-long learning is now expected of all teaching professionals (Day & Sachs, 2004). Current research on teacher learning draws on various perspectives, such as cognitive psychological (e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), and adult/workplace learning approaches (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991; Schön, 1983). Recently, both cognitive psychological and adult/workplace learning approaches have transitioned from an individualized to a more situated view of learning. These learning approaches share a conception of learning as active, self-directed, constructive and reflective, and as embedded in both individual and collaborative activities to link new knowledge with existing knowledge. Teacher learning in this chapter is viewed as a career-long, self-directed and active process, during which teachers engage in various formal and informal

A lesson study PLN  137

learning activities, on and off the job, in line with teachers’ work-related goals of enhancing their knowledge and beliefs (cognition) and/or their teaching practices (behavior). This definition is in accordance with the conception of learning described above and also consistent with other researchers in the field of teacher learning (e.g., Bakkenes et al., 2010; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Recent research on effective teacher learning has identified the characteristics of learning activities associated with improved teacher quality and student learning outcomes: active, collaborative, inquiry-based, practice-based, student-oriented and teacher-directed (e.g., Desimone, 2009; Kooy & Van Veen, 2012). These characteristics match Lesson Study very well, and Lesson Study perfectly fits our conception of teacher learning.

8.2.1 Lesson Study Lesson Study is a professional development approach that originated in Japan, and has spread across the globe since 1999 (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).Within and outside of Japan, there is evidence that Lesson Study has contributed to teachers’ professional development, improved teaching practice, improved students’ learning and built and sustained a professional learning community (e.g., Huang & Shimizu, 2016; Xu & Pedder, 2014). Recently, several attempts have been made to build a theoretical framework for Lesson Study and to unpack why and how Lesson Study works (e.g., Dudley, 2013; Runesson, 2015). Lewis et al. (2009) built and tested a theoretical model based on the earlier mentioned cognitive learning and situated learning theories, to investigate the mechanisms through which Lesson Study can be effectively used for instructional improvement outside of Japan (see Figure 8.1). First, the model posits that Lesson Study makes various types of knowledge more visible, thereby enabling teachers to encounter new or different ideas, and to refine their knowledge, according to cognitive theories. Second, the model posits that Lesson Study enables teachers to strengthen their professional community, and to build the norms and tools needed for instructional improvement, as situated theories of learning propose (Lewis et al., 2009: 286).

Features of Lesson Study: 1. Investigation 2. Planning 3. Research lesson 4. Reflection

FIGURE 8.1 A

Intervening changes in: Thinking becomes visible Community, norms, tools, identity and participation develop

1. Teacher knowledge, and beliefs 2. Teacher professional community

Instructional improvement

Student learning

3. Teaching-learning resources

theoretical model of how lesson study produces instructional improvement (Lewis et al., 2009: 287).

138  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

The model includes four Lesson Study features: Investigation, Planning, Research lesson and Reflection: ••

••

••

••

The first feature, Investigation, refers to considering students’ current characteristics and long-term goals for student learning and development, and studying the content area: key concepts, existing curricula, standards, learning trajectory, research. The second feature, Planning, implies selecting or developing the research lesson, anticipating student solutions, and writing up the instructional plan, including goals for student learning and development, anticipated student thinking, data collection points, rationale for lesson design and connection to long-term goals. The third feature is the Research lesson. One of the team members conducts the research lesson, and the other team members observe and collect data during this live research lesson. The last feature is Reflection: team members share and discuss data from the research lesson, and they develop implications for lesson redesign, for teaching and learning more broadly, and for understanding of students and subject matter. Finally, they summarize in writing what was learned from the cycle to consolidate the learning.

Furthermore, the model includes three pathways through which Lesson Study improves instruction: ••

••

••

changes in teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (e.g., subject matter knowledge; pedagogy; student thinking and how to capture it; long-term goals for student development and how they connect to daily instruction); changes in the professional community (e.g., motivation and capacity to improve instruction, including norms that emphasize inquiry and continuing improvement; sense of mutual accountability for providing high-­ quality instruction); and, changes in teaching and learning resources (e.g., tasks that reveal student thinking; data collection protocols that capture key elements of student learning and of instruction).

Research by Lewis et al. (2009) based on their theoretical model yielded evidence that Lesson Study work affected each of the three pathways, and provided an ‘existence proof ’ of the potential effectiveness of Lesson Study in the US context.

8.2.2 Factors related to successful implementation For successful implementation of professional development activities in teaching practice, in this case Lesson Study, a variety of personal, interpersonal, and conditional factors must be respected (Kooy & Van Veen, 2012; Thurlings & Den Brok,

A lesson study PLN  139

2014). Motivation is an essential personal factor (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000).Teachers must recognize the usefulness of participation in a Lesson Study PLN. With regard to the role of interpersonal factors in the collaborative processes of Lesson Study, the framework developed by Salas et al. (2005) identified five components of effective team work: •• •• •• •• ••

team leadership; mutual performance monitoring; being willing to back each other up; adaptability; and team orientation.

Additionally, shared mental models, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust can be identified as important coordinating mechanisms. Mutual trust seems the most important interpersonal factor (Thurlings & Den Brok, 2014). These components and mechanisms enable teachers to build the norms and tools needed for instructional improvement and to strengthen their professional community (Lewis et al., 2009). With regard to contextual factors, these can be divided into intervention-related factors and school-related factors (Thurlings & Den Brok, 2014). Thurlings and Den Brok (2014) distinguished seven intervention-related factors, such as the role of the facilitator, being given professional ‘room’, being given guidelines, group size and group composition. These factors are very well applicable to the performance of Lesson Study in our PLN context. Finally, school-related factors pertain to practical support from the school with regard to time and schedule issues, and to social support by the school management. These factors appear to benefit the process of collaboration (Thurlings & Den Brok, 2014).

8.3 Context for the Lesson Study PLN The context for the Lesson Study PLN discussed in this chapter was a three-year pilot project (2014–2017) for (cross-school) PLNs, launched by the Dutch Ministry of Education (Tweede Kamer, 2013). A national research project studied the effects and influential factors for teachers working in all 23 PLNs. No specific guidelines for the content or structure of the regional PLNs were prescribed by this overarching project, other than that the PLN should consist of a mix of teachers who had graduated from higher professional and from university-level teacher education; members should work on a specific approach or product as the outcome; the PLN should have regular (once a month) meetings for at least one year; and they should be guided by at least one expert in the area of research, curriculum design or didactical approach for the subject being taught. Each PLN in the project was guided by one or two teacher educators from a University and a University of Applied Sciences in the PLN region.The content and goal of the PLNs were determined by these facilitators (in cooperation with the participating teachers). These facilitators

140  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

and/or a researcher from the University in that region also independently studied the specific process and outcomes for their own PLN. Five PLNs were selected for a qualitative case study to obtain more in-depth insight into the process, influential factors and outcomes of these PLNs. This Lesson Study PLN was one of the case studies.

8.3.1 The Lesson Study PLN For this Lesson Study PLN about Dutch as a first language, the University in the region chose Lesson Study as its professional development approach. A first objective of the PLN was to improve teachers’ instructional behaviors, in particular, the more complex behaviors such as getting students to be active and differentiating between them. This appeared to be problematic for many teachers in Dutch secondary education (Dutch Schools Inspectorate, 2016). Second, the PLN had a content-specific topic: reading skills and the development of effective instructional resources. Third, another important aim of the PLN was enhancing the learning cultures in the respective schools by introducing Lesson Study through the PLN members as future Lesson Study facilitators. Therefore, it was vital to find teachers who were (1) motivated; (2) strong instructors; (3) both student- and developmentoriented; (4) willing to develop their skills at getting students to be active and differentiating between students; and (5) potentially able to motivate colleagues for educational development, change and innovation, as future Lesson Study facilitators. The PLN was coached by two teacher educators who taught methods courses for Dutch as a first language from teacher education institutes affiliated to two regional universities. Furthermore, the PLN consisted of 14 teachers from eight different secondary schools spread throughout the north of the Netherlands. This Lesson Study configuration can be characterized as cross-school Lesson Study (Xu & Pedder, 2014). With one male and 13 female teachers, the PLN was quite homogeneous in composition. In other respects, the PLN was quite heterogeneous: six teachers graduated from higher professional and eight from university teacher education, teachers’ average age was 41 years (range 26–58 years), and the average teaching experience was 12 years (range 4–28). Teachers got 100 working hours for participation in the PLN, for which the school received modest compensation. The PLN was scheduled for each Friday afternoon, and the participating schools’ school management were asked to schedule eventual research lessons also on Friday afternoon. The two teacher educators and the overall project manager (first author of this chapter) formed the PLN project group responsible for steering the PLN. The directors of both teacher education institutes and two school leaders formed the advisory board.

8.3.2 Lesson Study activities during two school years This PLN started in February 2014 with a kick-off meeting for the schools involved where Lesson Study was briefly introduced. In the spring of 2014, two introductory

A lesson study PLN  141

meetings for the participating teachers were held, both dealing with the contentspecific topic of the PLN. Starting in September 2014, two Lesson Study cycles took place each school year (2014–2015 and 2015–2016), in three Lesson Study teams of three to six teachers. We chose a US adaptation of the original Japanese Lesson Study by Stepanek et al. (2007), including the same four steps (investigation, planning, research lesson and reflection; Lewis et al., 2009). Introduction to Lesson Study happened step-by-step through the teacher educators, who in their turn had been introduced to Lesson Study by the project manager. During each cycle, the participants from the Lesson Study PLN were divided into subgroups of three or four participants, hereafter referred to as Lesson Study teams. After the second cycle, subgroups were reorganized into more heterogeneous groups to increase applicability of the output developed for multiple student levels. The Lesson Study teams met for two (first year) or three (second year) investigation and planning meetings in the context of their own PLN. Teachers were introduced to a new topic from their content area, in regard to the learning and teaching of this topic. Subsequently, they developed the research lesson and wrote out the instructional plan, including goals for student learning and development, anticipated student thinking and data collection points. The research lessons took place at the school of the teacher conducting each lesson. One of the team members conducted the research lesson, and the other team members plus one of the methods instructors, or the overall project manager observed and collected data during a live research lesson. The teachers visited each other’s schools twice per cycle to observe the research lessons in the original and the adapted version, and for the post-lesson discussion (reflection). Each cycle concluded with an evaluation and reflection meeting for the whole PLN, where the Lesson Study teams shared and discussed data from the research lessons, drew out implications for lesson redesign, for teaching and learning more broadly, and for the understanding of students and subject matter. Several times per year, meetings were organized for school leaders of the schools involved to inform them about Lesson Study activities and progress. Each year a closing conference was organized for the colleagues and school management involved, at which the Lesson Study teams presented their lesson studies and their lessons learned. After the first cycle in the first year, and to prepare for their roles as Lesson Study facilitators in their own schools, the Lesson Study teams received a concise handbook on how to do Lesson Study, based on Stepanek et al. (2007). Furthermore, the teacher educator, who was a methods instructor, fulfilled two roles: both the role of Lesson Study facilitator and the role of subject-matter expert. Examples of activities in the role of facilitator are clarifying goals and explaining the Lesson Study approach. In the second year, they concentrated more on their role of subjectmatter expert (Dutch), and the Lesson Study teams functioned more autonomously with rotating roles. During the two project years, the PLN project group monitored how Lesson Study was being done in the PLN, and took action several times. Beginning with the second cycle, a UK Lesson Study adaptation, the selection of three case students,

142  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

was introduced in order to heighten the focus on student learning (Dudley, 2011). Beginning with cycle three, there was explicit focus on both the teacher as researcher and making students’ thinking visible. Resources were provided as well. It was also decided to change team composition and to reduce team size. Finally, in order to enhance positive collaboration, Lesson Study teams were asked to begin the cycle with the discussion and development of group norms.

8.4 Effects of the Lesson Study PLN The PLN participants and the teacher educators were asked how teachers value Lesson Study as a learning experience (8.4.1), and about effects of participation in the Lesson Study PLN (8.4.2).

8.4.1 Value of Lesson Study as learning experience In general, teachers thought that they learned from Lesson Study. They valued the research lessons, reflection and planning in particular as learning activities. However, the investigation part was regarded as less informative. Teachers enjoyed working on the core aspect of teaching: developing lessons. They were satisfied with the goal-oriented nature of Lesson Study. One teacher commented after the second year: “It is very pleasant to prepare the same lesson with multiple colleagues. And that you first discuss, what do we actually want, what is the goal? And that you work from that goal.” Also according to the teacher educators, participants thought it was valuable to prepare a lesson collaboratively.This led to feelings of ownership among teachers. “Then the evaluation focuses on what the students have learned, instead of what the teachers did.” However, teachers were critical about the manual they used for Lesson Study, and especially the investigation part. This was “too structured and generating extra work.” Also, some found it annoying to keep being corrected by the teacher educators, and regarded the approach as akin to going back to school again. However, these teachers acknowledged the necessity of this approach for the learning experience: “It automatically goes from micro to macro, as you are working on a lesson that is adjusted over and over again.You see how it impacts the students. And everything you learn there (in the PLN), can be applied to your own teacher practice.”

8.4.2 Effects of participation in Lesson Study The Lesson Study PLN led to changes in teachers’ perceived knowledge and beliefs (first pathway; Figure 8.1).They learned about students and student thinking, about instruction in general, and that raised their awareness about teaching in general and the contact with students that are involved. Teachers became able to make choices about which forms of instruction belonged to the goals set, and they were able to observe students.They felt that their teaching was now more theory-based, and less subjective. They experienced a change in their professional attitudes. Furthermore,

A lesson study PLN  143

the visits to each other’s schools gave them a broader view of education in general. Personal factors also changed following Lesson Study participation. Teachers became more confident in their teaching by focusing on students’ learning: “It really strengthened my confidence, that you have time to develop lessons with other teachers.” And “By observing students, I gained confidence that the lessons work. Normally, when you teach, you do not always see what is happening.” With respect to the second pathway, professional community (Figure 8.1), teachers explained: “I learned more about collaboration, even if it takes more time, it adds value to search together for texts and to decide together, instead of doing it individually.” Teachers valued the new contacts, and the exchange of experiences, as it gave energy and new ideas to bring back to their own teaching practice: “It is just so incredibly pleasant to meet colleagues from outside the school. I think that is just as important as the subjects of this project.” Teaching and learning resources also seemed like an important pathway for change: “We look better at the course material and ask ourselves: does this fit with what we want to achieve?” and “You could very well use the same material at different levels; very nice to see the differences.” Physical outputs were a newly developed series of lessons, lesson materials and a manual for teachers, but outcomes also included refinement of research about practice, research instruments, improved lessons and improved student results. Teachers felt that Lesson Study led to greater clarity for students: “You exchange a lot, it is an added value for the (subject team). We give students greater clarity, as we handle things in the same way now (…). Our role as a teacher is less prominent now, it is more the students.” For some teachers, the Lesson Study PLN changed their teaching practice: “My classes are more active now, because I increased the interactions”; “I have more focus on the preparation of the lessons, I make sure now that I have prepared the PowerPoint presentation with the presentation of the goals, and what we are going to do, what exactly is the purpose of the lesson.”

8.5 Influencing factors The PLN participants and the teacher educators were asked how teachers valued the feasibility of Lesson Study (8.5.1), and about their motivation for the Lesson Study PLN (8.5.2), the collaboration in their Lesson Study teams (8.5.3), the PLNrelated factors (8.5.4) and the school-related factors (8.5.5).

8.5.1 Feasibility of Lesson Study Teachers saw Lesson Study in general as a feasible approach, in particular the research lesson and reflection parts. The investigation and planning parts were less feasible for them. The teacher educator added a critical note (after the second year). Some teachers did not seem to be open to ‘other things’, and did not show a research-based attitude. “The question is, are we able to sufficiently nurture or help these teachers,

144  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

who do not already teach in a research-based manner?” Furthermore, multiple teachers questioned the feasibility of the implementation of Lesson Study in their own school for the long term. At least one teacher was not confident that it would work. “I am afraid that it just costs too much time. (…) It is of course a very intensive, and time-consuming way of developing education. I am wondering if my colleagues would go through such a process (LS), without being compensated.” Another teacher wanted to apply the knowledge and skills from Lesson Study within his school, but felt hindered by the amount of hours available to do so. Concerning the feasibility of observing the impact on students, the teacher educator was surprised that the Lesson Study teams were not measuring the effects of their instruction among students. “(…) It was a question for actually every Lesson Study team. You learned something, and you have explained something. Are students able to do this now, or are they getting it now? These kind of control phases are lacking. That was something I found stunning (…).”

8.5.2 Motivation for the Lesson Study PLN The motivation for participation differed between teachers. Some were interested in the subject, and liked to develop themselves professionally; others were asked by their school board to participate. Some teachers were enthusiastic about participation, but became discouraged by the information about the effort they were asked to invest: “When I heard that we had to make a series of lessons, that were going to be published and had to be given to other teachers, and how many they were, I really got scared. I thought it would take a lot more time than I am spending now … It is not as bad as I thought.” One of the teacher educators observed increased motivation after the third cycle, partly because the composition of the subgroups had changed. She noticed from participants that the motivation to participate in the PLN was the focus on student learning and the fact that it was a Professional Learning Network, collaboration between teachers from different schools. However, a research-based attitude was lacking among multiple participants; for this reason, the teacher educator wondered whether the PLN would have been more effective if that had been an initial criterion for participation.

8.5.3 Collaboration In general, collaboration was perceived positively in all four cycles. However, teachers experienced collaboration differently within the Lesson Study teams. One teacher liked the variation in vision within the team, as it generated new ideas. Another teacher was not satisfied with the collaboration in her Lesson Study team. This teacher thought the motivation for PLN participation (the teacher’s own initiative versus the school leader’s initiative) impacted the collaboration, as did the teacher’s vision of education and personal characteristics.This led to ineffective discussions in the Lesson Study team. Most teachers, however, indicated they worked

A lesson study PLN  145

hard in the PLN, as did the other members within their Lesson Study team. They regularly met outside of meetings, physically as well as by social media. One teacher indicated that good collaboration is a process, which needs time to work. The core aspects of Lesson Study (give research lessons at their own schools), according to one teacher, automatically demanded that each member work hard: “If you don’t, you look like a fool in those lessons of course.” The structure of Lesson Study helped participants to overcome issues of trust. The teacher educator explained: “In Lesson Study you have some sort of shared ownership (…). A judgment will be given about the research lesson, and not about the teacher’s individual qualities. They all prepared the lesson collaboratively. I think this leads to a feeling of safety, which enables teachers to feel free and at ease.” All teachers valued the atmosphere as pleasant and good, and experienced mutual trust and respect.

8.5.4 PLN-related factors All teachers (after both years) experienced pleasant collaboration with the teacher educators, and were satisfied with the coaching by the teacher educators. “They are present, but not obtrusive. They adjust, ask questions, let us think, that is important.”Teachers felt the teacher educators are goal-oriented, flexible and enthusiastic, which they valued positively. The teacher educators were open-minded and were not afraid to discuss negative aspects of the process. One teacher commented: “The teacher educator is very capable, and knows what critical questions to ask, which improves the quality of the research lessons.” However, teachers did not experience a lot of content-specific input from the teacher educators in the first two cycles. After the third cycle, the framework set by the teacher educators was valued less positively compared to the first two cycles.This confirms the measures taken in the third cycle to accomplish another goal of the Lesson Study project team: to train participants to become Lesson Study facilitators in their own school environment. As already described in the introduction, the teacher educators decreased their Lesson Study process-specific guidance in this cycle. Some teachers regretted this measure, as the vision of the PLN was followed less strictly.

8.5.5 School-related factors In general, teachers were satisfied with the time provided by their own schools. Most teachers were given 100 hours per school year. Most of them, however, spent 10–15 hours per month, and additionally spent time to travel to other schools for the research lessons. Teachers expressed their worries about this, especially for implementation in the long term, as already described with regard to the feasibility of LS. Some teachers had to skip important meetings at school because of the PLN, and consequently, felt guilty about leaving their colleagues.Their PLN participation also led to cancellation of classes for the students. The teachers seemed somewhat less positive about the support from their school management. Teachers were divided about this issue. For some teachers, the

146  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

management was barely interested, while for others their management participated in a similar PLN and observed research lessons themselves. The value of a committed management team was recognized. One teacher stated that the Lesson Study approach should be directed by the school management, so that colleagues become aware of the time given by the management and that it is in their own interest to participate.Teachers perceived social support from colleagues mostly in an informal way, or not at all. One teacher even felt hindered by the fact that colleagues were not happy with this teacher missing important meetings for PLN purposes.

8.6 Conclusion and discussion The main question of this chapter was what are the effects of Lesson Study as a new approach for teacher learning and what factors influence these effects, in the context of a Lesson Study PLN for Dutch as a first language in the Netherlands? In summarizing the above, it is clear that all teachers experienced learning, mostly in the domain of the first pathway (see Figure 8.1; Lewis et al. 2009), knowledge and beliefs: about students and student thinking and about instruction in general, and often raised teachers’ awareness about teaching in general. But in the other pathways as well, professional community and teaching and learning resources, teachers had several learning experiences. Overall, the collaboration with the other teachers was perceived to be an important added value. The development, study and use of course materials also triggered the teachers to gain new insights. Several teachers saw effects on their own teaching practice: they applied insights from the lesson studies in their own classes. Zooming in on the Lesson Study cycle and the four features identified by Lewis et al. (2009), the teachers involved found Lesson Study in general valuable and feasible as a learning experience. This was true in particular for the research lesson and the reflection part, and to a lesser degree for the planning and investigation parts. This was a fairly consistent picture during the two years and the four cycles. Concerning the first feature, investigation, this is something that teachers were not accustomed to doing in the Dutch educational context, where they were used to working with available textbooks. Furthermore, teachers in general found it difficult to think of goals for student learning and development, let alone long-term goals, and it was also difficult to study the content area thoroughly in all its facets (key concepts, existing curricula, standards, learning trajectory, research). Teachers did not always find the planning part easy. It often took quite some time to agree about the theme of the research lesson. Another activity that was not very popular was writing out the instructional plan, including the goals for student learning and development, anticipated student thinking, data collection points, and rationale for lesson design. Making students’ learning and thinking visible turned out to be problematic at times as well. Nevertheless, the research lessons developed were most of the time very original, which, of course, is very time-consuming. Lesson Study requires a research-based attitude and may not be an easily executable approach for teachers who do not have such an attitude.

A lesson study PLN  147

From the current study discussed in this chapter, we do not know yet if Lesson Study is feasible for all types of teachers, as teachers in the study were assumed to be motivated, strong instructors, both student- as well as development-oriented, willing to develop their skills for getting students to be active and differentiating between them, and potentially able to motivate colleagues for educational development, change and innovation, based on the inclusion criteria. How would Lesson Study work for teachers whose attitude is far from research-minded? One of the teacher educators already questioned whether she would be able to help such teachers sufficiently. In addition, will the PLN teachers who themselves are still developing their research-based attitude be able to help their colleagues sufficiently in their future role as Lesson Study facilitator? Generally, with regard to collaboration in the teams of the Lesson Study PLN, most teachers were satisfied. Lesson Study seems to enable teachers to strengthen their professional community, and to build the norms and tools needed for instructional improvement (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lewis et al., 2009: 286). However, the differences between the teams were sometimes big, due to all sorts of interpersonal differences in the teams such as age, competences, character and dominance. Due to changes in team composition and team size, the differences between the teams did become smaller during the second year.Teams were composed to be more homogenous, to facilitate collaboration. It seems to be important to keep collaboration on the agenda all the time. For the current Lesson Study project, teachers were selected based on the abovementioned personal features. This raises questions about the applicability of Lesson Study within a school culture, in which interpersonal factors are expected to be much more diverse than in the current project. The intensive collaborative character of Lesson Study (Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002) puts an emphasis on collaboration between team members. For use of Lesson Study within a school context, the composition of Lesson Study teams should also be given a lot of attention. The PLN-related factors (Thurlings & Den Brok, 2014), such as the size and the composition of the PLN as a whole and the individual Lesson Study teams, the quality of the teacher educators as facilitators, and the professional ‘room’ and guidelines provided seemed to be in order. Teachers in general were enthusiastic about the teacher educators as facilitators in the context of the PLN and the Lesson Study teams, because they kept them on track and helped them to progress. For Lesson Study within a school context with a PLN teacher as Lesson Study facilitator, it will be a challenge, for example, to adhere to all the features of the Lesson Study approach in the face of the everyday hindering factors in the school context (such as time and motivation). Probably, in the early stages, coaching by the teacher educators will remain necessary. As to the supportive school leader and colleagues, teachers seemed to be less enthusiastic, particularly the teachers who were the only ones from their schools participating in Lesson Study. The current design includes regular meetings with the school management and a closing meeting to which colleagues can be invited. The question is whether this will be enough to increase the perception of support

148  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

among the participants. This support is an important factor for the transition of Lesson Study to the schools in the third year of the project (e.g., Stoll et al., 2006). Though the time provided by the school seemed to be in order, the amount of time provided remains an issue of concern. Teachers indicated that Lesson Study is a time-consuming approach to improving their instruction, for which they sometimes spent more time than provided by their school. Although supported, teachers missed important meetings at their own school because of their PLN participation, or classes had to be cancelled. Teachers expressed worries especially concerning the implementation of Lesson Study within their own school. The school management has an important role to fulfill here. It seems that, for Lesson Study to work in a school context, apart from time, certain institutional structures and practices are needed, such as a school improvement plan, a school research steering committee and a schedule for research lessons (Takahashi & McDougal, 2016). To enhance school-wide introduction of Lesson Study, school leaders thus should openly appreciate, invest in and organize Lesson Study activities. Based on the experiences in project years one and two, and to facilitate the transition of Lesson Study to the teachers’ own schools, the project group has decided on some implications for practice for project year three. First is to make the Lesson Study less time-consuming and more feasible by developing ‘ordinary’ instead of extraordinary lessons. Second is to pay greater and more explicit attention to the teachers’ attitude toward research through the investigation and planning parts, including the reporting in writing, in all cycles. Third is the Lesson Study in cycle 5 will be prepared in the PLN context, and the research lessons will be given and observed by colleagues at the school; at the same time, an in-school Lesson Study team will be formed for cycle 6. In cycle 6, the Lesson Study will be performed by in-school Lesson Study teams, led by the PLN participant as Lesson Study facilitator; the PLN will then offer a consultation platform, and the teacher educators will coach the individual PLN teachers at their own schools as Lesson Study facilitators. At the same time, a course developed in consultation with the schools will be organized for the PLN teachers, together with their school leaders, about student, teacher and organizational learning, forms of leadership, and school culture development and change to encourage them to have a common theoretical basis and to speak a common language with regard to Lesson Study as a professional development approach in their schools. Research during and after the third year will show whether and how this way of bringing Lesson Study into the schools has worked out. So far, the project results have demonstrated that Lesson Study as a form of reflective professional inquiry, which integrates group and individual learning and deep collaboration, has potential in the Dutch context as a model for teacher learning, provided that personal (motivation, ownership, research-based attitude), interpersonal (quality of the collaboration) and contextual factors (facilitation, leadership, time) are respected. However, this chapter also presents some limitations. It is based on just 14 teachers. The sample representativeness hinders its generalizability to other Lesson Study efforts, because these were willing teachers in a PLN. Another limitation may lie in the chosen Lesson Study approach in this PLN-specific project:

A lesson study PLN  149

we are now following the US Lesson Study version of Stepanek et al. (2007), with an adaptation by Dudley (2011). However, teaching is a cultural activity (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, 2016), and various conceptualizations of Lesson Study and associated forms of activities in Lesson Study have already been developed (e.g., the reviews by Huang & Shimizu, 2016; Xu & Pedder, 2014). It is plausible that Lesson Study needs to be adapted to the possibilities of our own educational system, and that we must find our own conceptualization of Lesson Study for the Dutch context to further enhance the positive results.

Acknowledgments This study is part of the project ‘Pilots for the development of PLNs’ funded and supported by the Dutch Ministry of Education.

References Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533–548. Beijaard, D., Korthagen, F., & Verloop, N. (2007). Understanding how teachers learn as a prerequisite for promoting teacher learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13, 105–108. Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan. Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., & Pedder, D. (2014). Lesson study as a vehicle for collaborative teacher learning in a secondary school. Professional Development in Education, 40(4), 511–529. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. De Vries, S., Jansen, E. P., & van de Grift, W. J. (2013). Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 78–89. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In C. Day & J. Sachs (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3–10). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Dudley, P. (2011). Lesson Study development in England: From school networks to national policy. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 85–100. Dudley, P. (2013).Teacher learning in Lesson Study:What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh

150  Siebrich de Vries and Rilana Prenger

evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121. Dutch Schools Inspectorate. (2016). De staat van het Onderwijs [The state of Education]. Onderwijsverslag [Educational report] 2014–2015. Utrecht: Dutch Schools Inspectorate. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. Fernandez, C., & Chokshi, S. (2002). A practical guide to translating lesson study for a US setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 128–134. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world:What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151–182. Huang, R., & Shimizu, Y. (2016). Improving teaching, developing teachers and teacher educators, and linking theory and practice through lesson study in mathematics: An international perspective. ZDM, 48(4), 393–409. Kooy, M., & Van Veen, K. (2012). Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives (pp. 22–43). New York: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304. Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 77–88. Onderwijscoöperatie. (2016). De staat van de leraar [The state of the teacher]. Utrecht: Onderwijscoöperatie. Runesson, U. (2015). Pedagogical and learning theories and the improvement and development of lesson and learning studies. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 4(3), 186–193. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. Scheerens, J. (2010).Teachers’ professional development: Europe in international comparison. An analysis of teachers’ professional development based on the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Aldershot: Arena. Stepanek, J., Appel, G., Leong, M., Mangan, M.T., & Mitchell, M. (2007). Leading lesson study: A practical guide for teachers and educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2016). Lesson study, improvement, and the importing of cultural routines. ZDM, 48(4), 581–587. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2016). Collaborative lesson research: maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM, 48(4), 513–526.

A lesson study PLN  151

Thurlings, M., & den Brok, P. (2014). Leraren leren als gelijken: wat werkt? [Teachers learn as equals: what is effective?]. Eindhoven: Eindhoven School of Education, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Tweede Kamer. (2013). Nadere invulling impuls leraren tekortvakken [Further details impulse for teachers of subjects where there is teacher shortage]. Vergaderjaar [Meeting year] 2012–2013, 27 923, nr. 151. www.duo.nl/zakelijk/VO/bekostiging/maatwerk_ muo/professionele_leergemeenschappen.asp Verhoef, N., Tall, D., Coenders, F., & Van Smaalen, D. (2014). The complexities of a lesson study in a Dutch situation: Mathematics teacher learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 859–881. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Xu, H., & Pedder, D. (2014). Lesson Study: An international review of the research. In P. Dudley (Ed.), Lesson study: professional learning for our time (pp. 29–58). London/New York: Routledge.

9 LEARNING NETWORKS FOR SUSTAINABLE LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

9.1 Introduction Professional Learning Networks (PLN) have been increasingly promoted as an effective form of teacher professional development to improve school practices. PLNs are defined in this book as any group who engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice in order to improve teaching and learning in school(s) and/or the school system more widely (see Introduction). In this chapter, we focus on the multiple intra- and inter-school PLNs that had been set up to sustain literacy interventions that improved achievement for indigenous and ethnic minority students (Lai et al., 2009; McNaughton et al., 2012). Some of the PLNs were developed outside of schools’ everyday community of practice; others were integrated with the everyday community of practice (i.e., the schools’ professional learning communities or PLCs). This integration, we believe, contributed to the PLNs function in sustaining achievement, and highlights the important role that both PLCs and PLNs play in sustainability. In this chapter, we briefly review the literature in terms of PLNs, PLCs and sustainability (9.2), before providing a brief description of the context of the research (9.3) and our approach (9.4). We then describe the structure, composition and content of the PLNs and how knowledge was shared across PLNs (9.5 and 9.6).We conclude (9.7) by discussing what we found in relation to other studies, and note the conditions that may have influenced the PLNs, including the influence of the New Zealand (NZ) educational policy environment.

9.2 PLCs, PLNs and sustainability Sustainability can be conceived in different ways. It can be conceived as an outcome, for example, a literacy intervention is sustained when literacy achievement

Learning networks and sustainability  153

continues to improve after the end of the intervention. Sustainability can also be conceived as a process, for example, the literacy intervention is sustained when schools continue the literacy strategies they used during the intervention. The latter views sustainability as continuing or maintaining activities designed to improve school systems and processes, teaching practices and/or student outcomes (Datnow, 2005). However, this assumes that we know all there is to know about being effective through the intervention’s actions, activities or teaching practices, and how they relate to outcomes of interest (Borman, 2005). It also assumes that the intervention activities are still applicable after the intervention, regardless of changes in a school such as demographic shifts and systemic changes such as new curricula or new technologies (Lai et al., 2009). Rather than focus on maintaining an intervention, it may be better to think of sustainability as a process of continued improvement to achieve valued student outcomes that is, school leaders and teachers continue to improve their practices to achieve valuable student outcomes. Continued improvement can be achieved through analysis of data which is used to determine which intervention actions, activities and teaching practices need to be maintained or modified to meet new school and student needs (Lai et al., 2009). Research on such data-based problemsolving approaches to professional development and interventions indicate that it can be associated with changes in teaching practice, and improvements in achievement during and after an intervention (see the best evidence synthesis by Timperley et al., 2007, for example; Carlson et al., 2011). While individual teachers and school leaders can examine their own practices, discussing them with others has several added benefits (Bryk et al., 2015). Firstly, the data based discussions in PLCs or PLNs often require participants to collaboratively analyze data to determine student and teaching needs, develop or modify their practices to address the students’ needs, and evaluate the impact (e.g., Lai & Schildkamp, 2016). This type of discussion requires participants to make their thinking explicit, as they have to explain and justify their practices (using evidence) to others. This in turn helps them clarify their own thinking and identify any taken-for-granted assumptions or gaps in knowledge, thus helping them improve their own practice. It is conceivable for teachers and school leaders to identify gaps in their own thinking through individual inquiry and reflection, but teachers and school leaders are often limited by their own “horizons of observation” (Little, 2003: 917). That is, their preconceived notions of teaching and learning limit the solutions they can develop on their own. Having others in the discussion with different knowledge and assumptions can potentially overcome an individual’s horizon of observation if, for example, clarification is sought for different viewpoints, and assumptions critiqued and challenged. Thus, data-based discussions in a PLC or PLN have the added benefit of allowing the collective generation and testing of knowledge to enhance teachers’ examination of their own practices (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Wenger, 1998). That is, teachers expand on each other’s contribution by adding new knowledge to the

154  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

PLN, and also critique each other’s existing knowledge. In this sense, through the PLC or PLN, both content and pedagogy are acquired, but also existing assumptions about teaching and learning are challenged and critiqued (Little, 2003). If PLCs or PLNs are designed such that each member brings different types and forms of knowledge to the group, there will be a greater pool of knowledge to address the identified student learning needs (Bryk et al., 2015; Earl & Timperley, 2008;Wenger, 1998). Networking with other communities beyond the school, such as with other schools or with experts external to the school, can enhance the pool of knowledge further. This is where PLNs have an added advantage over a PLC, as they involve others beyond the school’s community of teachers. Just as an individual can be limited by their horizon of observation, a school can be similarly limited if they do not look beyond their own school to how others have addressed similar issues. Indeed, PLNs that include experts external to the school have been linked with improvements in achievement, albeit in the context of wider interventions (e.g., Lai & McNaughton, 2016). With this approach, there are risks. Conceivably, there are opportunity costs in that PLCs or PLNs can take time away from actual teaching. PLNs may have greater opportunity costs, as they are additional to normal school learning communities. Complex networks of multiple PLNs also have the potential to become fragmented and disconnected, in that what one PLN learns and does bears little or no relation to what other PLNs do. This in turn is likely to reduce their effectiveness as sites for improving teacher practice and student achievement. Although not specifically focused on coherence across PLCs or PLNs, schools with stronger instructional program coherence have been shown to have higher achievement than those without (e.g., Newmann et al., 2001). As such, leaders have a critical role in the design and setup of the PLCs and PLNs to ensure coherence. In terms of PLCs, leaders have been implicated in the successful creation, management and sustainability of PLCs through optimizing structures and resources to enable PLCs to meet, promoting PLCs and the like (Bolam et al., 2005). These leadership tasks are similar to the more general dimensions of effective leadership identified as related to improved student achievement (see meta-analysis by Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008), which are establishing goals and expectations, strategic resourcing, promoting, participating and leading teacher learning and development, ensuring quality teaching, and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment. Of greatest relevance to the development of PLCs is the fact that the authors identified the dimension of participating and leading teacher learning and development as having the greatest effects on student outcomes. This suggests that in addition to setting up and supporting PLCs, leaders that lead PLCs and participate in them are more likely to have a greater impact on student outcomes (the goal of sustainability as defined here). The importance of leadership is possibly magnified in PLNs, because these networks occur outside of schools’ normal communities of learning.Therefore, it may be less clear what the most appropriate leadership structure for the PLN is, who should lead the PLN, and who is responsible for the success of the PLN.

Learning networks and sustainability  155

If PLCs and PLNs (both inter- and intra-school) have the potential to support schools sustain the positive outcomes associated with interventions, then it is important to understand the design principles that would enable us to optimize this goal, including how PLNs can help teachers to capitalize on the knowledge external to their school. Developing this understanding is all the more critical given that within-school PLCs are difficult to create and sustain (Bolam et al., 2005), let alone PLNs. Moreover, the breadth of literature on what is considered a PLC or PLN and the lack of clarity on whether PLC or PLN characteristics can be generalized beyond their initial context limit the application of the current literature to specific settings (see the knowledge synthesis by Fulton et al., 2010, for example). In other words, more is known about effective characteristics of PLCs and PLNs in general than how to use those characteristics to design a successful PLC or PLN in a particular setting. Bolam et al.’s (2005: i) conclusion about PLCs, which equally applies to PLNs, is most relevant here. They note that “although PLCs have common characteristics and adopt similar processes, the practical implications for developing a PLC can only be understood and worked out in the specific conditions – like phase, size and location – of particular contexts and settings.” With regard to PLNs, this means that the practical implications of how to design a successful PLN is best understood and worked out in terms of the context and settings of the PLN. If so, what may be critical to support teachers and school leaders to set up their own PLNs are case studies with rich descriptions of how they have been designed within a specific context.These rich descriptions help teachers and school leaders to see how the context and setting provide both affordances and barriers to setting up their own PLNs in their context. As such, in this chapter, we provide a rich description of the multiple inter- and intra-school PLNs set up by one cluster of schools to promote the sustainability of a literacy intervention that improved achievement for indigenous and ethnic minority students.We focus on the individual PLN structures, composition and leadership, as well as the connections between PLNs (both connections in PLNs within a school and between schools).

9.3 Context This case study takes place in New Zealand, specifically in seven schools from a government-funded schooling improvement cluster that had participated in a literacy intervention to improve reading comprehension in eight- to fourteen-year-old students. The cluster leader was a Director of the Junior School (Years 1–6) from a school within the cluster (n.b.: the school is called a ‘campus’ and comprises students from Years 1–13. There is an overall Principal, with a Director for the Junior and Senior schools within the campus). The cluster structure was established prior to the literacy intervention, during an earlier initiative by the Ministry of Education to develop PLNs across schools to improve schooling. (The cluster PLN structure is described in detail later.) Schools in the cluster were classified as Decile 1. Decile 1 schools are the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities. The students were from primarily indigenous

156  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

(Māori) and ethnic minority (Pacific nations) communities, and there had been a long history of academic under-achievement in these schools (Lai et al., 2009). The literacy intervention was conducted over three years, and a key component of the intervention was the collaborative analysis and discussion of data in PLCs and PLNs, that is, some of the discussions occurred in PLNs outside of schools’ everyday communities of practice, and others were integrated into schools’ normal communities of practice (PLCs). Achievement increased significantly during the intervention such that the average student was now achieving within the expected band of achievement, whereas they were in the below expectations band prior (Lai et al., 2009). The intervention utilized the existing school and cluster PLCs and PLNs to deliver the professional development, thus adding a stronger content knowledge component in both literacy teaching and data analysis to existing PLCs and PLNs. In addition, researchers became a formal part of the PLCs and PLNs, and additional data were collected and analyzed as part of the intervention (e.g., a sample of teacher observations). Additional PLNs for Lead Teachers were established in the second year of the intervention to learn and trial specific literacy methods that were identified as key to improving achievement; and in the final year, an action research conference was established where every teacher in the intervention had to identify an area of student learning to improve and present the results of their improvements to other teachers in the cluster (Lead Teachers are teachers in each school that have the responsibility of leading and sustaining the literacy program in their school). Details of the intervention are in Lai et al. (2009). A follow-up study examining the sustainability of the intervention was carried out in the two years immediately after the end of the intervention (e.g., Lai et al., 2009). This involved collecting achievement data to examine achievement after the intervention, interviews with leaders, surveys (pedagogical content knowledge and leadership), document analysis of key documents (e.g., school assessment calendar), and observations of a sample of PLCs and PLNs; all of which was used to develop a theory of action about sustainability including the barriers to, and enablers of, sustainability. Achievement in the two years after the intervention was examined by researchers via the statistical method of hierarchical linear modeling. Achievement continued to improve at the rate it did during the intervention, namely four months in addition to expected progress (Lai et al., 2009). This is a notable improvement in achievement because there are very few studies that can demonstrate improvements in achievement after the end of an intervention (Timperley et al., 2007). School leaders’ theories of action had a strong emphasis on analyzing and using data in networks to sustain student achievement (Lai al., 2007). There was also a focus on making the intervention part of the schools’ core business, and ensuring a coherent instructional program.

9.4 Our approach This chapter focuses on an aspect of the larger two-year case study on sustainability that we have not previously described in detail, namely the inter- and

Learning networks and sustainability  157

intra-school PLNs during the sustainability years, and is a qualitative secondary analysis of the data collected through that study. The data collection methods are described in detail elsewhere (Lai et al., 2009). We drew from multiple sources of data to describe the complex structure of, and connections between, the school and cluster PLNs. These include: (a) interviews with school and cluster leaders conducted at the start of the second year (the cluster leaders were also school leaders holding dual roles); (b) relevant school documents (identified from the interviews as relevant to triangulate data and provide detail on the interview content); and (c) a sample of PLN observations from each school. Interviews with school leaders were used to determine the structure and composition of within-school PLNs with triangulation of these meetings derived from school documents and observations of a sample of one PLN meeting per school. For example, when the school leader mentioned that multiple PLNs in his school focused on analyzing and using data to improve teaching practices, we checked the school documents (e.g., school timetable and meeting agenda) to corroborate this statement and observed a PLN meeting to see if the focus was as stated. The observations also provided further data on the content of the discussions. The interview with the school leaders (who were also cluster leaders) provided detail on the cluster PLNs with triangulation from the cluster documents, such as the cluster yearly calendar that listed every cluster PLN meeting, and notes from cluster meetings. In addition to the research data, the descriptions of the PLN here also drew from the insider perspective of the authors. Both authors were part of the intervention that raised literacy achievement, and both had worked with the cluster prior to the literacy intervention. After the end of that intervention, the first author continued to attend the cluster PLNs as the researcher member of the PLN, and led the Principal cluster PLN (details in the next section). The second author was an associate member of the cluster PLNs, participating as invited by the cluster. As such, both authors were in the unique position of being both insider and outsider to this research and able to corroborate first-hand the structure, composition and content of the cluster PLNs.

9.5 Findings There were multiple PLNs at different levels within and between schools that were designed to achieve the same purpose. The purpose was to analyze data to develop more effective practices and improve reading comprehension. Table 9.1 shows the PLNs in schools across the cluster (inter-school and intra-school) focused on reading comprehension, their membership and primary content.The school and cluster PLNs established were identical to the intervention, and the content of the PLNs were similarly focused on analyzing and using achievement data to improve teaching and learning. The intra-school PLNs utilized existing school communities of practice, so that additional PLNs need not be scheduled. As such, the PLNs were integrated into schools’ PLCs.

TABLE 9.1  Intra-school and inter-school PLN characteristics

PLN level Senior Management Team (SMT)1

PLN leader

PLN members

Intra-school Principal (or his/ Principal and Senior her delegated Leaders (typically leader) Associate and Deputy Principals who may also be the Lead Teacher) i.e., the entire SMT of a school

PLN content Analyze school-wide reading achievement data to determine trends and patterns and develop leadership and management strategies to address the achievement patterns. This includes analysis of subgroups (e.g., individual year levels, ethnicity, gender) and trends over time. Monitor ongoing achievement and modify leadership and management strategies. Evaluate strategies.

Syndicate2 (Junior)

Lead Teacher

Lead Teacher, all teachers who teach at the junior level of the school (typically ages five to seven)

Similar to the SMT PLN but the focus is on (a) Junior syndicate-level reading achievement data and individual classroom achievement data to improve teaching practices, and (b) specific classroom practices to improve reading achievement.

Syndicate (Senior)

Lead Teacher

Lead Teacher, all teachers who teach at the senior level of the school (typically ages eight to thirteen)

Similar to the SMT PLN but the focus is on (a) Senior syndicate-level reading achievement data and individual classroom achievement data to improve teaching practices, and (b) specific classroom practices to improve reading achievement.

Staff

Principal or delegated leader (e.g., Lead Teacher)

All teaching staff in the school

Similar to the SMT PLN but with a focus on the overall school data. This can include a section of the meeting where syndicates examine their syndicate level data or where teachers examine their classroom data. (Continued )

TABLE 9.1  Intra-school and inter-school PLN characteristics (Continued )

Inter-school (Cluster) All principals and Cluster Leaders Cluster Leader Lead Teachers (the Cluster Leader was also in the cluster, researcher, Ministry the Overall of Education Leader of all the inter-school representative clusters).

Analyze cluster-wide achievement data and individual school data to determine trends and patterns, and develop leadership and management strategies to address the achievement patterns. Monitor ongoing achievement and modify leadership and management strategies. Evaluate strategies. Similar to Cluster Leaders PLN but focused on leadership practices in relation to the analysis and discussion of data

Principals

Researcher in All principals from conjunction with each school in the Cluster Leader cluster, researcher, Ministry of Education representative

Lead Teachers (Junior Syndicate)

All Lead Teachers in Similar to the Cluster Leaders Lead Teacher the Junior Syndicate PLN but focused on the junior appointed in each school level of the school from the Lead Teachers of each Junior School Syndicate

Lead Teachers (Senior Syndicate)

All Lead Teachers in Similar to the Cluster Leaders Lead Teacher appointed from the Senior Syndicate PLN but focused on the senior level of the school the Lead Teachers in each school of each Senior School Syndicate All teachers and school leaders from across the cluster, and researchers from the PLN

Action research, where teachers identify an area of student learning to improve, design a project to improve that area of learning in their own classroom or syndicate, and discuss their research with other teachers in the conference. Lead Teachers are primarily responsible for ensuring that their teachers carried out the projects.

Special Event: Organized by All Lead Teachers, Strategic Cluster Leader Principals and one planning retreat and a committee nominee from each school in the cluster

Evaluate data on progress during the year (individual school and cluster), and develop a strategic plan for the coming year.

Special Event: Organized by Action research the conference conference committee

1. Each row is a separate PLN. 2. Syndicate comprises all teachers teaching the same year levels in the school.

160  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

Each PLN in the school and across the cluster focused on reading comprehension. The schools in the cluster used a common standardized assessment to collect reading comprehension data as the starting point for discussing reading achievement and as the means to measure any improvements (there is no nationally mandated assessment tool for primary schools in New Zealand, and schools can choose from a range of standardized or non-standardized reading assessments to measure achievement). These data were analyzed and discussed in each PLN. Note that this was not teaching to the test or narrowing the curriculum to what is tested. Rather the tests were used as the starting point to understand students’ strengths and weaknesses, and to develop instructional practices that could improve achievement. For example, one area of weakness in the test data was cloze passages (where a passage had missing words and students had to fill in the missing words). Teachers did not give the cloze passages from versions of the test to students to practice. Instead, they focused on developing teaching strategies to address the identified learning needs from this task, such as reading the entire passage for meaning before inserting a word, understanding how words work in relation to a passage, etc.

9.5.1 Structure, composition and content of the PLNs 9.5.1.1 Intra-school PLNs Each school integrated some of their existing intra-school meetings into PLN meetings so that additional PLN meetings did not need to be timetabled. Intraschool PLNs all had the same purpose, which was to analyze data to improve achievement, but each PLN level in the school focused on the analysis of data and subsequent actions appropriate to their level. For example, the Senior Management PLNs (SMT) focused on how the senior leaders could develop strategies and policies to improve achievement given the patterns emerging from the data; the syndicate level PLNs focused on students in teachers’ classrooms (usually including disaggregated data about individuals) and syndicate level trends and patterns; the staff PLNs discussed whole school data to develop shared purpose and understandings across the whole school, and to ensure coherence between the analyses taking place at different levels of the school. For example, in one school, the leaders in their PLN (and through participation in the inter-school cluster PLNs, described later) identified an issue where student achievement gains made during the year were ‘lost’ during summer. The issue was discussed in the SMT around how best to address the issue from a leadership and management perspective; the Staff PLNs where the issue was presented by the leaders and discussed by all staff; and in the Syndicate level PLNs where the focus was on strategies to facilitate literacy learning over summer. These strategies in turn were then fed back to the SMT. The PLNs were structured to have overlapping membership and leaders, which supported the sharing of knowledge and practices across PLNs in the school. Each school leader within the school (Principal, Lead Teachers) collectively participated in all the cluster PLNs that were appropriate to their role. For example, Lead

Learning networks and sustainability  161

Teachers typically belonged to three PLNs (Staff, SMT and either Junior or Senior syndicates) or two PLNs (Syndicate and Staff), where their role was to lead the Syndicate PLN and either support the principal lead, the staff PLN or lead the staff PLN (Table 9.1). Teachers belonged to two PLNs (staff and either the Junior or Senior Syndicate). In this way, all staff in the school were involved in at least two PLNs, and no one could opt out of participating in a PLN.

9.5.1.2 Inter-school (Cluster) PLNs There were multiple inter-school PLNs. These PLNs comprised teachers and school leaders, and membership in a PLN was according to the PLN members’ responsibility within their school (i.e., Principals PLN, Lead Teacher [Junior Syndicate], etc.) (see Table 9.1). The inter-school PLNs had additional members, namely a researcher (first author) who had been involved in the literacy intervention and who continued to work with the cluster after the intervention ended, and a Ministry of Education representative who was responsible for the schooling improvement initiative schools were involved in. In addition, the research center that ran the original literacy intervention provided additional support by collating and analyzing the reading data, and writing analysis reports for the cluster and individual schools that were used by the PLNs. Each of these PLNs determined how often they would meet. These meeting times were during the school day. The PLN members were ‘released’ from their school to participate: for example, the school arranged for another staff member to cover that PLN member’s workload during the time of the meeting. School leaders did not get additional funding for releasing PLN members; instead, through careful budgeting, they used their existing school funding for this purpose. Every PLN meeting was documented in a cluster calendar. In the year we carried out the research, the cluster calendar showed eight Cluster Leaders PLNs, eight Principal PLNs, eight Lead Teachers (Senior) PLNs, and six Lead Teachers (Junior) PLNs. In addition to the regular cluster PLNs, there were two larger PLNs, which were ‘special events’ in the cluster calendar. The first was an action research conference (one day) for staff in all schools held at the end of the year, and the second a three-day strategic planning PLN. The cluster PLNs and special events were timetabled into a yearly cluster calendar that was typically provided to all cluster members the year before so that everyone could prioritize the dates. It should be noted that the cluster was also part of a wider PLN (Leaders’ Learning Network), which comprised two leaders from each Ministry of Education Schooling Improvement cluster and a researcher.The researcher facilitated cluster learning from each other, and facilitated access to the latest relevant research findings and researchers. This wider Network is not described further as it is not this chapter’s focus. Inter-school PLNs all had the same purpose, that was to analyze data to improve achievement across all schools in the cluster, including identifying common issues in reading across schools and learning from other schools how they addressed these issues. However, each PLN level focused on the analysis of data and subsequent

162  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

actions appropriate to their level. For example, the Lead Teachers and Principals PLN focused on how the cluster could develop leadership strategies and policies to improve achievement given the patterns of achievement across the cluster and each individual school. A focus was on the retention of current teachers and the attraction and induction of new teachers to the cluster, as the data showed that teacher retention was a common problem across all schools in the cluster and associated in some cases with lower achievement. Inter-school clusters also worked on pooling their resources. For example, the Lead Teacher (Senior) PLN worked on a book recommendation list including what books worked best for different kinds of readers (reluctant readers, boys, etc.) to support students and parents select books to read when they were not at school. The PLNs were structured to have overlapping membership and leaders, which supported the sharing of knowledge and practices across PLNs in the school. Principals from each school participated in all the PLNs that were appropriate to their role (Cluster Leaders and Principals PLNs); Lead Teachers participated in two PLNs (Cluster Leaders and either Lead Teachers (Junior) or Lead Teachers (Senior). Principals and Lead Teachers also participated in the two cluster special events. Teachers in each school only participated in the special event (action research conference) if they held no position of responsibility to lead the PLNs in their school. In terms of leadership, there was an overall leader of all the inter-school PLNs who, along with the cluster leadership team, was responsible for the leadership and coherence of the inter-school PLNs. The cluster leadership team comprised the overall cluster leader who also led the Cluster Leader PLN, and the other interschool PLN leaders (e.g., leader of the Lead Teachers [Senior Syndicate]).The overall leader was supported by her school, which released her for a proportion of her time to do this leadership role. Her role was also financed by contributions from other schools in the cluster, and also other grant money, where possible.

9.6 How knowledge was shared between PLNs The intent of each PLN was to build knowledge through data analysis to improve teaching and school practices and raise reading achievement (Table 9.1). To augment the learning from individual PLNs, each PLN was deliberately networked to enable knowledge gained in one PLN to be shared with other PLNs within and between schools. This was evident in the fact that there were specific people with the responsibility for sharing knowledge with the other PLNs they were leading and/or involved with. For example, each participant in the Cluster Leaders PLN (Lead Teacher and Principal) was also a leader of a school PLN and was expected to share knowledge developed from the Cluster Leaders PLN with their PLN. The Lead Teacher role (which was a formal role in each school) was deliberately designed by the cluster to facilitate knowledge sharing between the cluster PLNs and the school PLNs, and vice versa. There was also documentation of deliberate and structured ways of knowledge sharing between PLNs, for example, the Cluster Leaders PLN included time for feedback and discussion from other cluster

Learning networks and sustainability  163

PLNs, and these were led by the leaders of the other cluster PLNs. In addition to the structured mechanisms and formal roles, knowledge sharing was also informal across PLNs because school leaders and teachers participated in multiple PLNs both within and between schools. This network and the expectation of knowledge sharing across PLNs were established before the intervention, and reinforced and strengthened during the intervention. The following figures show how knowledge was shared between PLNs within a school (Figure 9. 1), between PLNs within the cluster (Figure 9. 2), and between one school and the cluster (as an example of how knowledge sharing occurred between schools and cluster PLNs) (Figure 9. 3). In each Figure, the arrows show the direction of knowledge sharing. (Note that the figures do not include sharing knowledge in the special event PLNs, as these are one-off  ) In Figure 9.3, the cluster PLNs are in italics. While the figures here are a useful visual device to support readers’ understanding of how knowledge was shared across PLNs, it is important to note that these figures are generalizations across the different issues being discussed, and in the case of Figure 9.2, generalizations across schools. The figures are also based on available documentation and other supporting evidence, and the level of documentation and other evidence in each school varied. Moreover, as this study is a secondary data analysis, there was no opportunity to collect additional data. This means that where we had insufficient data, we used our insider knowledge to fill in the gaps. These figures, therefore, are our interpretation of the knowledge sharing in the cluster based on an analysis of the available data and our insider knowledge. In both school and cluster PLNs (Figures 9.1 and 9.2), there was a bidirectional sharing of knowledge, for example, knowledge discussed in the SMT PLN was discussed in the staff PLN, and new knowledge resulting from the staff PLN fed back to the SMT PLN. The main person responsible for sharing knowledge with the other PLNs was the PLN leader (see Table 9.1). Because teachers and school leaders

Staff PLN

Senior Management team PLN Junior Syndicate PLN

FIGURE 9.1 

Senior Syndicate PLN

Knowledge sharing between PLNs in a school (intra-school).

164  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

Principals PLN

Cluster Leaders PLN Lead Teachers (Junior Syndicate) PLN

FIGURE 9.2 

Lead Teachers (Senior Syndicate) PLN

Knowledge sharing between PLNs in a cluster (intra-cluster).

belonged to multiple PLNs, informal knowledge sharing also occurred between the PLNs that they belonged to. For example, in an individual school, teachers who belonged to the Staff and Syndicate Level PLNs were expected to share knowledge between them. In this regard, the sharing of knowledge across PLNs was devolved across the PLN leader and the PLN members, and every PLN was connected in some way to another PLN. Knowledge sharing between a school and the cluster was similarly bidirectional between the cluster and the school used as the example of knowledge sharing here (Figure 9.3), for example, knowledge discussed in a cluster PLN was discussed in School: Senior Management Team

Cluster: Principals

Cluster: Cluster Leaders

Cluster: Lead Teachers (Junior)

Cluster: Lead Teachers (Senior)

FIGURE 9.3 

School: Syndicate (Junior)

School: Syndicate (Senior)

Knowledge sharing between a school and the cluster PLNs (in italics).

Learning networks and sustainability  165

the school PLN, and new knowledge resulting from the school PLN fed back to the cluster PLN that generated the original knowledge. The main people responsible for sharing knowledge back into the school were the participants of the PLNs, who were also the leaders of the PLNs in the schools (i.e., each cluster PLN member had a dual role as a PLN leader in his/her school. For example, the participant in the Cluster Leaders PLN and Principals PLN was the school principal, who was also responsible for leading the SMT PLN and sometimes the staff PLN in his/ her school). The knowledge sharing from cluster to school and vice versa could therefore be seen as due, in a large part, to the overlapping membership and dual roles. The knowledge from the Lead Teachers (Junior) PLN, for example, would feed directly into the school’s Syndicate (Junior) PLN because the Lead Teachers (Junior) PLN member was also the leader of the school’s Syndicate (Junior) PLN. While Figure 9.3 shows that the Cluster Syndicate PLNs directly influenced the School Syndicate PLNs, it was unclear how much of that was mediated by the individual school SMT, which appeared to have an important role in sharing knowledge (see Figure 9.1). Moreover, it was sometimes hard to determine the origin of a piece of knowledge, for example, whether the knowledge about an issue started in one PLN and then spread to the others, whether various PLNs were independently and simultaneously discussing the same issue in their respective PLNs, etc. This was due to the fact PLN members participated in multiple PLNs discussing similar issues. For example, the issue of students losing achievement gains over the summer holidays was identified in the Cluster PLN that we participated in and appeared to have been the catalyst for the cluster focus on learning over summer; however, in some schools (not the one used in the example in Figure 9.3), this issue had already been identified and discussed in their school PLNs, and their individual investigation into this issue would have contributed to the cluster discussion. These issues could have arisen because of the limited research resources to fully investigate how the PLNs worked. Future research might focus on tracing the origins of knowledge, for example, and the roles of leaders in schools in supporting PLNs.

Cluster: Cluster Leaders PLN

School: Senior Management Team PLN

School: Syndicate (Junior) PLN

School: Staff PLN Cluster: Lead Teacher (Senior) PLN FIGURE 9.4  Knowledge

italics).

School: Syndicate (Senior) PLN

sharing example between the school and cluster PLNs (in

166  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

An example of knowledge sharing is as follows (see Figure 9.4): the Cluster Leader PLN examined the collated school and cluster data on reading comprehension provided by the research team, noting both the general pattern across schools and individual school variations. In this case, they noted that a significant proportion of students achieving at the lower achievement bands lost the gains made during the academic year after the summer holidays. This discussion became the catalyst for the school SMT PLN to discuss its own school data, identifying the numbers that were losing achievement in their school. The SMT PLN decided on a structure for how the syndicate level PLNs might address the issue. It also then designed the staff PLN to feedback the findings from the data presented at the Cluster Leaders PLN to their staff. In the Syndicate (Junior) PLN, the issue of students losing their gains was discussed, and new knowledge of how to address the losses were identified including working with parents and the local libraries to ensure that students continued to read during the holidays, and lending out CDs with books to families. New knowledge generated from the Staff and Syndicate (Junior) PLNs was then fed back into the Cluster PLN discussions. Simultaneously, the Lead Teacher (Senior) PLN worked on another aspect of this issue, namely helping parents and students select appropriate books to read over the holidays.The PLN worked on a book recommendation list including what books worked best for different kinds of readers (reluctant readers, boys, etc.), which was shared via the Lead Teachers to their respective school PLNs.

9.7 Discussion and conclusion There was a complex network of intra- and inter-school PLNs to sustain reading comprehension achievement at the end of the intervention. The PLNs shared a common purpose of improving reading, used the same method for improving achievement (analyzing data to improve teaching, leadership and/or management practices), and used the same reading comprehension test to collect reading data.The configuration of the networks optimized knowledge sharing. Because teachers and school leaders participated in multiple PLNs, at several levels between and within schools, multiple opportunities for knowledge sharing and leadership could occur. Distributed knowledge and leadership supported schools and the cluster maintained a strong and coherent focus on their goals and developed effective practices to solve ongoing educational challenges. These in turn appeared to contribute to maintaining and enabling further changes in practices in the classroom. Thus, the structure, composition and focus of the PLNs ensured a continued process of improving reading achievement, a process that is consistent with our definition of sustainability. The evidence we have provided is essentially associative in that the improvements in achievement were associated with the PLNs, and there remains the need to formally test the improvements in achievement because of the PLNs. However, there is theoretical and empirical support for the underlying assumptions of the PLCs, which may also apply to PLNs. The PLNs described here had many features consistent with the literature on effective PLCs and networks (e.g., see the

Learning networks and sustainability  167

list of effective PLC characteristics identified by Bolam et al., 2005; Bryk et al., 2015; and others mentioned in the literature review), and with empirical studies where PLCs have been associated with improvements in achievement (e.g., Lai & Schildkamp, 2016). Data-based problem-solving which was a critical component of the literacy intervention that raised achievement in these schools (Lai et al., 2009) and which has been implicated (albeit variably) in interventions and professional learning (Lai & McNaughton, 2016; Carlson et al., 2011) was a critical part of the PLCs after the intervention ended. PLNs involving other school leaders and teachers and researchers allowed for a wider pool of knowledge to be accessed to both generate new knowledge and critique existing and new knowledge (Earl & Timperley, 2008; Wenger, 1998). The complexity of the networks had the potential to become fragmented but there appeared to be strong coherence across networks based on a shared and common purpose that had developed during the literacy intervention and continued after the intervention. This provided vision and direction, and directed resources, qualities which are implicated in effective PLC design (e.g., Bolam et al., 2005; Earl & Katz, 2006). Membership of multiple PLNs further ensured that the purpose was shared across all members and provided a way of inducting new members into the shared purpose of the PLN. As such, the results suggest a potential link between the PLNs set up to sustain achievement and the achievement gains made after the end of the intervention. Given the complexity of the PLNs both within and between schools, the role of PLN leaders (school and cluster PLN leaders) is critical. This is consistent with Peurach (2016), who examined the features of effective leadership in 20 educational reform programs in the United States. He identified the role of network leaders as the ‘key agents of change’ in the 25 years of reform in the United States given goals to develop large-scale, evidence-informed and evidence-proven innovations to improve educational outcomes for historically underserved students. In the context we have described here, the leaders demonstrate many of the responsibilities and practices that he and others have argued as necessary if continuous improvement is to occur (see also the meta-analysis by Robinson et al., 2008). The leaders also demonstrate leadership characteristics identified as important in establishing and maintaining PLCs (Bolam et al., 2005; Fulton et al., 2010). To illustrate: school leaders led at least one school PLN and participated in both cluster and school PLNs. This is consistent with the dimension of leadership with the highest impact on student achievement identified in Robinson et al.’s meta-analysis (‘dimension of participating and leading teacher learning and development’). The structure and composition of the PLNs further suggest that leaders collectively promoted and sustained a shared goal of sustaining reading comprehension achievement through PLNs. Every PLN in the school and cluster was designed by school and/or cluster leaders to focus on the same goal, and leaders ensured that all staff were involved in multiple PLNs to achieve the same goal. This is also linked to effective PLC development (e.g., Earl & Katz, 2006), which is applicable to PLNs. Leaders also directed resources to the PLN by providing teacher release for their school leaders to participate in the cluster PLN. They ensured maximum PLN participation

168  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

by ensuring that the school PLNs were held during school time, and freed up existing meeting times for PLN meetings. The cluster PLNs were timetabled into a yearly cluster calendar to ensure that the PLN times were prioritized and their time protected, as were the school PLNs. In this way, PLNs were embedded into the schools’ and cluster’s normal routines, and championed by the leaders (Bolam et al., 2005). Given the importance of the leaders, it would be useful to better understand the role of the PLN leader, in particular the theories of action that lead leaders to develop structures and content in the way that they did here. Developing a PLN that meets its goals within the constraints of existing school structure and resources is a complex problem-solving task, and there are risks to be managed such as an opportunity cost associated with removing teachers from classrooms and keeping the PLNs coherent with wider school goals. The first risk requires a form of cost benefit analysis to judge the optimal level of engagement in PLNs and to determine the point at which teaching and learning time is compromised; the second requires leaders to develop structures and processes to maintain instructional coherence. Making the problem-solving logic explicit will support others wanting to develop PLNs to understand how to solve this problem in their own setting, as the practical implications for developing a PLN can only be understood and worked out in the specific conditions of particular contexts and settings (see Bolam et al., 2005, for example). Allied to this, it would be important to examine teachers’ understanding of the PLNs in which they were participating. While the structure as outlined in the various documents and as described by leaders appeared highly consistent, this may not be the experience of teachers in the PLN. The mandated nature of the PLNs may also become a barrier to teachers’ buy in, as it may be perceived as a ‘management’ task. Similarly, it would be important to track more systematically how knowledge is shared from one PLN to another, including an examination of the variations in how knowledge is shared across PLNs, how knowledge changes in nature during this process, and the impact of these variations. The intra-school PLNs were integrated into existing school PLCs, and were therefore not in addition to schools’ normal learning communities. Therefore, while we use the term PLN in this chapter for both intra- and inter-school PLNs, it could be argued that the intra-school PLNs were not actually PLNs because they were the school’s normal learning communities (PLNs are defined by Brown and Poortman in this book to be in addition to a school’s normal learning communities). In other words, the PLNs were absorbed into the schools’ PLCs, and the work of the PLN was transformed into normal school business. However, one could also argue the opposite: that the PLNs were merely using the existing school communities for their purposes, and that for all intents and purposes, those intra-school PLCs functioned like PLNs. It is not the intention of this study to examine distinctions between PLCs and PLNs. What we found suggests that for the PLNs to become sustainable, they should be integrated

Learning networks and sustainability  169

into schools’ core communities; otherwise there would be insufficient time and resources to sustain the PLN. This highlights the important role both PLCs and PLNs play in sustainability, and more research could be undertaken to understand whether the two kinds of communities are distinct and how they might contribute to sustainability. There are two further conditions that may have played an important role in how the PLNs were maintained and used to sustain literacy achievement. One is a ‘pre-history’ of networking. As with any community of practice, there is a need to explicitly and deliberately develop the protocols, norms, values and practices required for a community to function effectively, and developing these takes time (Wenger, 1998). The PLNs here were central to the cluster prior to and during the literacy intervention. As such, using PLNs to sustain the literacy intervention can be seen as an extension of the existing PLN networks, rather than an establishment of new ones. A further implication is that PLNs were conceived by leaders as both the means for sustainability and the object of sustainability. PLNs were established to sustain achievement; PLNs were also the practices from the intervention that needed to be sustained. As such, sustaining the PLNs established in the intervention (PLNs for sustainability) also became the means of sustaining the achievement made through the PLN (sustainability of PLNs). It is therefore unclear whether schools that participated in another kind of intervention that did not use PLNs would conceive of PLNs as the way to maintain achievement made through the intervention. Moreover, the intervention was deliberately designed to include PLNs to improve its sustainability, so it may be easier to sustain PLNs under these conditions. The role of the intervention in sustainability of PLNs and PLCs for sustainability needs to be better understood. The second condition is the impact of the national educational policy environment on PLNs. It is important to note that the wider NZ policy environment supports the development of PLNs focused on analyzing and using data as described here. For example, a recent Ministry of Education initiative was launched to develop PLNs across schools (Ministry of Education, n.d.). Moreover, the NZ educational systems does not have strong top-down high stakes accountability and national testing, although it has national tests later in schooling, and has national and/or regional accountability systems (Lai & Schildkamp, 2016). Under these conditions, schools may be more willing to share information about practices and students, and networks can thrive.

Acknowledgments The research and development program received funding from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (New Zealand Council for Educational Research), the Woolf Fisher Trust and the New Zealand Ministry of Education. This project is the result of a close collaboration between the leaders, teachers and members of the Woolf Fisher Research Centre.

170  Mei Kuin Lai and Stuart McNaughton

References Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining professional learning communities. Research Report Number 637. London, England: General Teaching Council for England, Department for Education and Skills. Borman, G. (2005). National efforts to bring reform to scale in high-poverty schools: Outcomes and implications. In L. Parker (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 29, pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Bryk A. S., Gomez L. M., Grunow A., & LeMahieu P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M. (2011). A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 378–398. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121–153. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading in a data rich world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Earl, L., & Timperley, H. (Eds.). (2008). Evidence-based conversations to improve educational practices. Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer Academic Publishers. Fulton, K., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: A knowledge synthesis. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future & West Ed. Lai, M.K., & McNaughton, S. (2016). The impact of data use professional development on student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 434–443. Lai, M.K., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). In-service teacher professional learning: Use of assessment in data-based decision-making. In G.T. Brown & L. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 77–94). New York: Routledge. Lai, M.K., McNaughton, S., & Timperley, H. (2007). Sustainability of professional learning final milestone report. Auckland, New Zealand: Uniservices Ltd. Lai, M. K., McNaughton, S., Amituanai-Toloa, M., Turner, R., & Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustained acceleration of achievement in reading comprehension: The New Zealand experience. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 30–56. Little, J. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. McNaughton, S., Lai, M. K., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an intervention model based on data use: A replication series across clusters of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 203–228. Ministry of Education (n.d.). Communities of Learning: Kāhui Ako. Retrieved from www. education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/col/ Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, 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. Peurach, D. J. (2016). Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: Leading educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 421–429. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes:An analysis of the differential effects of leadership type. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

Learning networks and sustainability  171

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Best evidence synthesis iterations (BES) on professional learning and development. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10 GETTING BENEATH THE SURFACE Examining the social side of Professional Learning Networks Joelle Rodway

10.1 Introduction This chapter addresses a new way of thinking about and exploring the importance of relationships in Professional Learning Networks from a sociological standpoint (10.2). Throughout this chapter, I will introduce core Social Network Analysis (SNA) concepts and measures, demonstrating their utility through the use of findings from a recent study of a Professional Learning Network that provides an example of how we can use them in practice (10.3 and 10.4). You will learn about SNA at the whole network level, and how network concepts such as cohesion and centralization can help you gain a sense of what is happening across your complete network—the big picture, so to speak (10.5). I will also introduce you to other concepts such as prominence, centrality, and prestige, which allow you to zoom in and see what is happening in the network at the individual level (10.6). These methods and tools will allow you to get beneath the surface of your network, giving you a robust understanding of the activity that is happening within it. But before we get into the nuts and bolts of SNA, let me explain why social network research matters (10.2).

10.2 The importance of social network research In broad terms, a network is “a group or system of interconnected people or things” (Oxford Online Dictionary, 2015, emphasis added). There is no one thing on the planet that is not connected to something else; we all belong to networks of some sort or another. It is through our connections to one another that we build the relationships necessary to lead healthy and productive lives. We know from prior research that relationships build trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Bryk & Schneider, 2002), facilitate knowledge exchange (Haythornthwaite, 1996; Cross & Parker,

Getting beneath the surface  173

2004), and enable individuals to make sense of the world around them (Weick, 1995). Relationships are important, and it is the relational patterns within a network that constitute its very existence. Yet, despite the growing body of robust research that focuses deliberately on the social side of educational change strategies, these ideas have struggled to gain the attention of educational policymakers (Quintero, 2017). The work of education systems is complex; schools are complicated places. Individuals make sense of their work collectively (Coburn, 2005; Weick, 1995), and the importance of relationships is often highlighted across the field of education research. Over the last decade or so, there has been a growing number of education researchers who are using innovative research methods such as social network analysis to study how patterns of interaction among and between actors within a school system affect their work. Teacher collaboration (Moolenaar, 2012), leadership (Spillane et al., 2015), use of research evidence (Finnegan & Daly, 2015), diffusion of innovations (Frank et al., 2004) and even the effects of negative relationships (Daly et al., 2015) and the dissolution of ties (Spillane & Shirrell, 2017) have been examined through a social network perspective. The contribution of these studies is that they both quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrate the importance of relationships in the daily lives of schools and school systems. Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) are becoming a more commonly used educational change strategy, as leaders pay more attention to the collaborative professionalism required to address the increasingly complex issues that face educators today. PLNs present an example of the colloquial use of the term ‘network’ (Degenne & Forsé, 1999), describing a group of educators working together to achieve a shared goal. In this context, emphasis is placed rightly on the group and the collective knowledge and wisdom that lies within it. In this chapter, I draw your attention to the sociology of a network, moving beyond the motivations of a PLN and the organizational conditions that support it, towards what is happening beneath the surface of the network. My aim is to make ‘invisible work visible’ (Cross et al., 2002) to enable system, school, and teacher leaders to understand how the patterns of interaction within and between network participants cultivate the professional capital necessary to move school improvement and innovation agendas forward. To support this endeavor, let me provide you with an empirical example to help you make sense of these ideas.

10.3 Setting the stage: an empirical example to guide you through The Child and Youth Mental Health program (CYMH, a pseudonym) is an example of a Canadian research brokering network (see Rodway, 2015a), a specific type of PLN focused explicitly on using research-based knowledge (Davies & Nutley, 2008) in the development of school mental health policy. CYMH works with school districts to: (1) build the organizational conditions necessary for effective mental health and well-being promotion; (2) build the capacity of educators to

174  Joelle Rodway

engage in this kind of work; and, (3) provide support as school districts implement mental health promotion and prevention programming. CYMH coaches, which includes the program director, are people with expertise in social work and school psychology. They carry out their work through the provision of evidence-based tools, resources, and implementation supports that were developed in consultation with partner agencies and other child and youth mental health experts. As part of the initiative, each participating school district was provided funding from the Ontario Ministry of Education to support the appointment of one Mental Health Leader (MHL) whose job responsibilities include (but are not limited to) coordinating the development of local school mental health policies and programs. MHLs are formally paired with program coaches with whom they can connect for support outside of formal meetings where everyone in the group comes together from across the province for planned and facilitated professional learning. Figure 10.1 presents an organizational chart for 2011–2013, the first two years of the CYMH program. This exploratory case study was guided by this research question: In what ways do patterns of interaction within the CYMH program facilitate and/or constrain how participants find, understand, share and use research knowledge in support of evidence-based school mental health policy in publicly funded school districts? The first two cohorts of school district Mental Health Leaders (N=31 MHLs) and the CYMH coaches (N=6, including the director as a coach) participated in this research. As part of the study, participants completed a survey that included social network questions that asked them about their interactions with CYMH members outside of the formally organized professional learning events. These interactions constituted their informal social networks and were the focus of this study (see Rodway, 2015b, for more details). To illustrate how social network theory and concepts can be used to reveal what is happening in a PLN, in this chapter, I use data from two CYMH networks: research knowledge and general information. For example, I will show you how highly centralized networks (i.e., networks whose activity focuses heavily on a subset of people) may be at risk for dissolution over the long term, and how a formal program design may not accurately represent the patterns of interaction within the group during implementation. Using social network analysis, I am able to show you how to get beneath the surface of a PLN to discover ‘the story behind

FIGURE 10.1 

Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) organizational chart.

Getting beneath the surface  175

the story’ (Vodicka, 2015). It is important for system and school leaders and other educators with responsibilities for professional learning to recognize that a sociological understanding of PLNs will provide them with important, and often missed, insights about how the connections among and between their colleagues are enabling or restricting their work. We will start by focusing on the foundation of any Professional Learning Network: the people and the ties that bind them.

10.4 The building blocks of social networks: Actors and ties From a sociological perspective, networks are comprised of two things: actors and the ties that connect them to each other. Actors can be individuals (e.g., students, teachers, leaders, etc.) or collective entities (e.g., schools, schools districts, school systems). Ties represent any type of relationship that connects one actor to another. Common types of ties studied in social network research include social relations (e.g., a friend of, a student of  ), mental relations (e.g., likes, trusts), interactions (e.g., advice), and flows (e.g., information, money) among many others (Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). Furthermore, ties are referred to as being one of two types: instrumental or expressive. Instrumental ties refer to relationships where resources such as advice or information are exchanged, helping you carry out a specific task. Expressive ties, on the other hand, are relationships such as friendship or venting that provide you with social and emotional support that enable you to do your work. Taking a social network perspective means that you are focusing on these relational patterns in order to better understand the social fabric of a phenomenon. In particular, your attention is centered on the extent to which the quantity and quality of the relationships within a network connect the actors within it (Carolan, 2013; Scott, 2017). One of the immediately useful aspects of social network analysis is the ability to produce visualizations of complex patterns of network interactions; network maps are an important first step in understanding your network.

10.4.1 Visualizing actors and ties in network maps Network maps, formally called sociograms, can be generated using specialized software (e.g., NetDraw, Gephi) to present graphical representations of what the patterns of activity within a network look like. For example, Figure 10.2 visualizes the interactions within the CYMH general information network. Recall that the study included 31 school district Mental Health Leaders and six coaches for a total of 37 people; thus, there are 37 actors in the network map. In a network map, each actor is represented by a shape called a node. You will notice in this map that the nodes are different shapes and colors. In this case, the white triangles represent CYMH coaches, the black circles are Cohort 1 MHLs, and the grey circles are Cohort 2 MHLs. Network maps provide us with a plethora of information about the network. This map immediately tells us that every person in this network is connected to someone else; there are no isolates. In other words, no one is left out. It is clear that

176  Joelle Rodway 9

21

10 4 32

29

28

13

31

7

2

15 3 35

36

24 20

23

1 27

14

30

26

26

22 19

25 17

12 34 13

4

11

5

18

37

FIGURE 10.2 CYMH

General Information network.White triangles represent CYMH coaches, black circles represent cohort 1 MHLs, and grey circles represent cohort 2 MHLs. Thick black lines indicate reciprocal ties.

everyone is either seeking out information from, or providing information to, their colleagues. This is an important insight because the presence of isolates means that some actors are completely unable to benefit from or access the resources that exist within the group (e.g., advice, information, social support). Isolates are a call to action for PLN leaders and participants to revamp or reorganize in order to maximize participation of all members for everyone’s benefit. These illustrations can also tell us who are the resource seekers and resource providers within a network. If who is seeking a particular resource from whom is unknown, we refer to undirected ties, which are depicted by straight lines connecting two actors (or nodes). When the direction of resource flow is known, we refer to directed ties, which are identified in a network map by arrowheads pointing from the resource seeker towards the resource provider. Look at the black circle #12 (a cohort 1 MHL) on the right-hand side of Figure 10.2, for example. By looking at the direction of the arrowheads on the lines that connect the nodes to one another, we can see that this person seeks out information from five people (nodes #1, 7, 8, 18 and 36) given that the arrowheads are pointing from #12 towards these colleagues.This map also tells us that #12 provides information to three people (nodes #1, 13 and 30) because arrowheads from each of these people are pointing towards #12. Thus, actor #12 has seven connections with colleagues in the general information network. The bi-directionality of actors’ ties shows the extent to which people are active in the network and in what ways (i.e., both seeking and providing information from others). As we dig deeper into SNA, we will learn about social

Getting beneath the surface  177

network statistics that we can use to describe these ties, but the emphasis here is that this map shows that everyone in the network is active in some way. Reciprocal ties refer to instances where resources flow in both directions: two actors seek out resources from and provide them to each other. They are directed ties, which are visible in network maps. In this map, the thicker black lines identify the reciprocal ties. In Figure 10.2, node #12 shares a reciprocal tie with node #1 meaning that these two people seek information from and also provide information to each other. The mixture of thick and thin lines in this network map tells us that this network contains not only reciprocal ties, but also many ties where information flows in only one direction (thin grey lines). It is clear that most ties flow in one direction in this network—resources flow from one person to another in a single direction. Similar to tie direction, there is a specific family of social network measures that report on the total proportion of reciprocal ties within a network, and we will visit those statistics and their importance in our discussion of whole network level SNA later on. But for now, it is important to know that networks low in reciprocal ties tend towards a hierarchical structure (Carolan, 2013), a tendency that is evident in this network map. Attribute variables can provide further information about the patterns of relations within a network, and they can be combined with network variables to enhance statistical analyses (Borgatti et al., 2013). For instance, I used participants’ roles in the CYMH program (i.e., coach or MHL) and their cohort membership (cohort 1 or 2) as node attributes in Figure 10.2. The attribute data for node #12—represented by the colors and the shapes of the nodes—tell us that this person is a cohort 1 MHL (black circle) who reported seeking information from four cohort 2 colleagues (grey circles #8, 7, 36, and 18), providing information to two cohort 1 colleagues (black circles #13 and 30), while also seeking information from and providing it to one coach (white triangle #1). So, one might ask, how is this practically relevant? If we were curious, for example, about inter-cohort interaction within this group, the patterns of interaction for node #12 show us an individual who is interacting across cohorts, which could prompt further examination. It is also evident that node #12 interacts only with coach #1 who, as the program director, is not formally assigned as a coach to specific MHLs. This finding is peculiar: why isn’t this MHL interacting with her assigned coach as per the program design? As is evident in this example, attribute data in combination with network visualizations can provide important preliminary insights into relational patterns that could prompt further analyses depending on the question of interest and the level of network analysis. Using the CYMH general information network as an example, we have covered the basic building blocks of social networks: actors and ties. We have learned that each network actor can represent singular beings or collective groups, and also that ties can be directed or undirected, and reciprocal or unidirectional. In terms of the CYMH information network, we learned that there are three groups of people within the network (the coaches, and two cohorts of MHLs), all of whom are connected to at least one other person in the network. Information generally flows

178  Joelle Rodway

in one direction (i.e., from one person to another), but there are some instances where information is flowing to and from two people in both directions, and in at least one case, a MHL only interacts with a coach not assigned to her in the formal program structure. Based on these simple characteristics, easily visible in a network map when you know what you’re looking for, we are able to glean an overall sense of what is happening within this network. These concepts are the foundation of social networks, which can be analyzed at multiple levels (Kadushin, 2012). I’m going to focus specifically on two levels of analysis in this chapter, starting with the whole network level in the next section of this chapter, followed by the egocentric level of analysis thereafter.

10.5 The big picture: Looking at the whole network The whole network level of analysis (also known as complete network analysis) focuses on the collective patterns of interaction across all ties within an entire network. There are many different measures that can be applied at the whole network level (see Carolan, 2013), but the measures chosen depend on the theoretical frame within which a network study is situated. Social network analysis is not just a methodology; it includes a set of complementary theories that are needed to make sense of social network data (Robbins, 2015). The CYMH study was informed by network theory, which focuses on the consequences of observed patterns of interaction on the exchange of social capital within a network (see Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). As such, I used the theoretical concept of network cohesion—a concept with theoretical implications on the flow of information—to inform my analyses. In the following sections, I will explain network cohesion from a network theory point of view, and then I will explain how two social network measures, density and centralization, were applied to the CYMH general information network to help us better understand how knowledge was mobilized within this group as a whole.

10.5.1 Cohesion Cohesion refers to the extent to which the members of a network are connected to each other; it speaks to the overall degree of connectedness within a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Prell (2012: 166) describes cohesion as “the extent to which a network ‘stays together’ versus the extent to which a network breaks apart” when the network membership changes. A network is cohesive when members are closely connected to one another, and resources flow more easily through wellconnected networks (Kadushin, 2012; Moody & White, 2003). There are multiple social network measures that can help us determine the level of cohesion within a network. Here, I focus on two measures: density and centralization. 10.5.1.1 Density. Density measures the level of activity within a network (Scott, 2017). The more ties there are in a network, the denser it is; the denser the network, the more cohesive it is (Borgatti et al., 2013). It is calculated as the proportion of ties present in a network in relation to the total possible number of ties,

Getting beneath the surface  179

or as Deal et al. (2009: 30) describe it, “the number of real connections divided by the number of possibilities.” When density equals 100 percent (D = 1.0), everyone is connected to everyone else—every single member shares a tie with every other member in the network. Because density is a function of the overall number of actors within it, it can be difficult to make comparisons with other networks; as such, network characteristics (e.g., size) must be considered before you can make meaningful network comparisons (Borgatti et al., 2013). Furthermore, a social network perspective does not simply mean using a set of methodological tools to describe network activity; a social network perspective also includes using network-related theories (e.g., network theory, social capital theory, diffusion) to help make sense of network findings. From a network theory perspective, resources theoretically flow more easily and directly through dense social networks as opposed to those with fewer ties (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). The more ties there are in a network, the more easily information can be exchanged throughout it. Thus, density is a measure that can help you investigate how efficiently information can travel throughout your network. In the CYMH study, data was collected on two different types of information networks—research knowledge and general information—which enabled network comparisons. There are 37 actors in the CYMH network; therefore, the total number of possible ties in this network is 1,332 (37 x (37-1) = 1,332).1 In reality, the general information network contains 294 ties. It has a density of 22% (D = 294/1 332 = .22), or rather, 22% of all possible ties are present in this network. In contrast, the research network contains 127 ties, so it has a lower density of 9.5% (D = .095). Figure 10.3 presents a comparison of CYMH’s general information and research 19

General Information Network (D = 22%) 15 16

13

37

8

25

7 10

34 21

30 17

11

20

32

27

1

12

6 26

3

31

23 4

36

29 35 22

33

28 9

2 14

18

5 24

FIGURE 10.3A  Density

comparisons between CYMH’s general information and research knowledge networks. Note: white triangles represent CYMH coaches, black circles are cohort 1 MHLs, and the grey circles are cohort 2 MHLs. Thick black lines indicate reciprocal ties.

180  Joelle Rodway Research Knowledge Network (D = 9.5%) 21

9

33

6 29

31

15 35

23

8

32

28

7

2

3

24

36

20 14

1

30

19

22 17

25

16 34

27

26 12

18 11

6 4

13 5 37

FIGURE 10.3B 

knowledge networks; it uses the same attribute characteristics as in the previous network map (white triangles = CYMH coaches, black circles = cohort 1 MHLs, grey circles = cohort 2 MHLs). The difference in network densities is manifested visually in the network maps (see Figure 10.3) by the number of ties (i.e., black lines) in the general information network in comparison to the research network. Recall that network theory shows us that information flows more easily through dense networks—the closer a density score is to 100% (D = 1.0), the better information can flow between members of the network. When considered as a proportion of the total number of possible ties, both the CYMH general information and research knowledge networks have relatively low levels of activity. However, when comparing one type of information flow to another, we can say that general information flows much more easily than research does within the CYMH program given that there are more than twice as many ties within the general information network. Using a particular statistical procedure (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005),2 a density comparison between these two networks reveals that there are significantly fewer ties in the research network in comparison with the general information network; there is significantly less activity in the research network. What are the implications of these patterns of interaction on knowledge mobilization within the CYMH program? A natural tendency is to try to classify density scores as high, moderate, or low. Because of the unique contexts in which networks operate, it is impossible to set such thresholds. However, we know that in the case of the CYMH networks, only a small proportion of possible ties actually exist, particularly in the research knowledge network where only one out of every ten potential interactions occurs. If network facilitators want information to be exchanged more easily within the informal social networks (i.e., interactions that occur outside of formally organized professional learning opportunities), they have to address the conditions that are

Getting beneath the surface  181

constraining these patterns of interaction. On the other hand, if the expectation is for research knowledge to be exchanged primarily within the formal learning events, then this low level of activity may not be considered problematic based on the program’s theory of action.These social network views of the CYMH networks provide an important feedback mechanism to inform program leaders about how to facilitate their networks moving forward. Although density is a useful measure, it has some important properties that should be taken into consideration when using it to assess network cohesion. As mentioned earlier, density is sensitive to network size (see Borgatti et al., 2013). It is much easier to have networks where everyone is connected to each other when there are fewer people in it. Furthermore, the degree to which relationships are spread across all members in the network is not taken into account when we focus only on the total number of ties within it.The density of a network could be quite high, but a disproportionate number of the ties could connect to one member (or a particular group of members) over others. In this case, density as an individual measure may not be the most effective indicator of network cohesion on its own. As such, we should consider additional social network measures like centralization to provide further insight into the extent that a network is cohesive (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). 10.5.1.2 Centralization. Centralization (CD) refers to the extent to which the activity within a network focuses on one or a subset of individuals. Let me use a ‘star graph’ to illustrate this point because a perfectly centralized network has a star-shaped structure (see Figure 10.4). In this map of a fictitious network, Alice has ties with everyone (she has four ties) while the others only have ties with her (each person has one tie with Alice). Alice holds a terrific position of power in this network structure because she controls the flow of resources within this network (Carolan, 2013). In order for anyone else in the network to connect with resources from someone else, they depend on Alice to facilitate that relationship. In this way, Alice serves a gatekeeping function, possessing a lot of control over what resources get mobilized within the group. Within the context of a PLN, this would mean that Alice controls the flow of all resources within it, for instance, information. If Carol wants to get some information to Elizabeth, she has to go through Alice. This is true for everyone in the network. While this may have benefits for Alice, it often does not benefit the majority of others within the network. Elizabeth

Brian

Alice

David FIGURE 10.4 

Carol

Star graph—a completely centralized network.

182  Joelle Rodway

High levels of centralization are indicative of less cohesive networks because the removal of the central figures would reduce the amount of activity within the network (Prell, 2012). Hence, there is an inverse relationship between cohesion and centralization. The more a network’s activity focuses on a particular person or small group of people, the less cohesive it is because removal of these ‘key players’ (Borgatti, 2003) will result in a disconnected network. If, for some reason, Alice was removed from our fictitious network in Figure 10.4, there would be no other connections within it. I used centralization as a measure to explore to what extent patterns of interaction focused on a subset of actors within the CYMH program, empowering some individuals over others. Let me explain how I did that. Recall that for the CYMH general information and research knowledge networks, I collected directed data: we can identify the information seekers and the information providers in each of these networks. Directed data permits the use of three centralization scores for each network: (1) an overall centralization score, which ignores the direction of a tie and gives us a general idea about the degree to which overall network activity focuses on a subset of actors; (2) outdegree centralization which measures how much the resource seeking behavior focuses on a subset of actors; and, (3) indegree centralization which tells us to what extent the resource providers are limited to a subset of actors. Table 10.1 shows these three centralization scores for the general information and research knowledge networks. These scores can be interpreted similar to correlation coefficients; the closer the value is to 1.0, the stronger the pattern of interaction within a network takes on a star-shaped (i.e., centralized) structure. The general information network is strikingly centralized overall (CD = .82); however, the directed centralization scores tell us that the pattern of resource seeking behavior (outdegree) focuses much more on a subset of people than does the pattern of provision (indegree). There are a few members within CYMH who are seeking out information far more than the others. In contrast, the overall centralization score for the research knowledge network suggests that activity is fairly spread out across all members of the network. Yet, when you consider who is providing research knowledge to whom (indegree), we can see that there is a tendency for this activity to focus on some folks more than others (CD = .44).These levels of centralization in both of the networks negatively impact network cohesion given that, in both cases, the patterns of interaction typically focus on a small group of individuals. Within the general information network, there is a subset of people who seek out information more frequently than others. In the research network, there is a small group of people who provide research-based information more often than others. In TABLE 10.1  Centralization scores for the CYMH general information and research

knowledge networks Network

Overall

Outdegree (Seeking)

Indegree (Provision)

General Information Research Knowledge

.824 .134

.801 .130

.344 .444

Getting beneath the surface  183

both cases, if we were to remove these people from the CYMH network, the level of activity within it would be reduced considerably. Thus, in addition to the density statistics, these centralization findings provide further evidence that neither of these informal information networks are cohesive (i.e., strongly connected). Information does not appear to be flowing as well as it could be in CYMH’s informal networks. On their own, these measures tell us that the general information and research networks are not very active (density) and that the patterns of interaction focus somewhat on a particular group of people (centralization). However, the centralization measures don’t tell us who those people are. Who are the people who are seeking out information? Who is providing research knowledge to others most often? To consider this, we have to look more closely at the individual patterns of interaction in a network—the egocentric network level—which is the focus of the next section.

10.6 Zooming in: An egocentric view of a network At the egocentric network level, we focus on individual patterns of interaction. Individual actors are the objects of focus. As such, we use a different set of SNA tools at this level of analysis (although, as we shall see later, whole network and egocentric network level measures are related). Again, the measures you choose depend on the theoretical framework from which you are operating. In the CYMH study, I focused on prominence, putting emphasis on identifying who are the central actors within a network. Let’s take a closer look at what prominence is and what it tells us about the CYMH information networks.

10.6.1 Prominence The idea that there are some actors within a network who are more important than others is one that occupied the minds of the earliest network scholars and it persists today. Actors are considered prominent or important if their ties with others result in them being “particularly visible to other actors in the network” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994: 172). They are considered to be central figures within networks, and consequently, they enjoy privileges (e.g., easier access to resources) that others in the network do not (Freeman, 1979). To facilitate a clearer understanding of what it means to be ‘visible’ within a network, Knoke and Burt (1983) offer two types of prominence: centrality and prestige. As the term implies, centrality emphasizes actors who are at the center of activity within a network. Central figures in a network are not always those actors with the greatest number of ties, however.There are many different types of centrality measures that can be used to determine how central an actor is within a network. As Borgatti et al. (2013: 164) point out, centrality “is not one thing, but rather a family of concepts” that help us to understand how an actor contributes to the relational patterns within a network.3 By identifying who are central actors in networks and understanding what network conditions contribute to that

184  Joelle Rodway

centrality, we are better able to understand what is happening within the network (Prell, 2012). Prestige, on the other hand, can only be determined when we are able to identify the direction of relationships within the network (i.e., outgoing/seeking versus incoming/receiving ties). Actors’ levels of prestige increase when they “are the object of more ties” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994: 174); that is, prestigious actors are those who receive the most ties within the network. In this way, an actor can be central with a network (e.g., reaches out to many other actors within the network thereby possessing more outgoing ties), but not necessarily prestigious (e.g., not receiving many incoming ties). One way to identify the prominent actors within a network is to use a measure called degree centrality. 10.6.1.1 Degree centrality. Quite simply, degree centrality counts the number of ties each actor has within a network (Freeman, 1979). It is a commonly used social network measure that is closely related to the concept of centralization. Whereas centralization focuses at the whole network level considering the proportion of ties present that focus on a subset of actors, degree centrality looks at each person’s individual score. As a measure of network prominence, degree centrality allows us to highlight which specific actors are important in terms of the overall level of activity within a network. When the direction of network ties is known, degree centrality scores can be calculated in two different ways. Outdegree centrality scores count the number of times an actor seeks out a resource from someone else in the network (i.e., outgoing/seeking ties). Indegree centrality scores count the number of times an actor sought out by another to provide a resource (i.e., incoming/receiving ties). Table 10.2 presents a description of the distribution of outdegree and indegree centrality scores (disaggregated by role) for the CYMH general information and research networks. Keep in mind that, in a network that has 37 members, the maximum raw degree centrality score4 attainable is 36—you don’t count a tie with yourself! Overall, people possess more general information ties (about eight ties on average) than research ties (about three ties on average) within the CYMH networks. When looking at the disaggregated data, however, different patterns emerge.Within the general information network, coaches possess higher average outdegree and TABLE 10.2  Distribution of outdegree and indegree centrality scores

Network

General Information Overall MHLs Coaches Research Knowledge Overall MHLs Coaches

Outdegree

Indegree

M

SD

Min.

Max.

M

SD

Min.

Max.

7.95 6.94 15.80

7.553 5.341 14.096

0 0 4

36 18 36

7.95 7.06 11.60

5.196 4.753 5.505

1 1 5

20 19 20

3.43 3.58 3.20

2.243 2.335 1.095

0 0 2

8 8 5

3.43 2.03 11.00

4.953 3.240 6.892

0 0 5

19 14 19

Getting beneath the surface  185

indegree centrality scores in comparison with MHLs, showing that coaches are the most active people within this information network in terms of both seeking information from and providing it to others. In the research network, MHLs and coaches maintain a similar number of outgoing ties (i.e., they seek out research knowledge with similar regularity), but coaches possess a statistically significant higher number of incoming ties telling us that coaches are the sources of research knowledge most often within this group.5 Overall, by focusing on the egocentric (or individual) level of activity within these two information networks, we learned that the coaches are the most active participants in terms of both seeking out general information and providing it to other members in the network. In addition, although coaches and MHLs seek out research knowledge with similar frequency, coaches most often provide research knowledge to others, making them the most prestigious actors within the research knowledge network. How do we use this knowledge along with the whole network level insights to more fully understand these networks? In the following section, I bring it all together, using the research knowledge network as the focus to help build our understanding of our collective insights from both the whole network and egocentric network points of view.

10.7 Bringing it all together: Using egocentric analyses to enrich what we know at the whole network level Network measures can be related to each other even though they are used at different levels of analysis. Centralization (a whole network level measure) and degree centrality (an egocentric level measure) are two such measures. In Table 10.1, the centralization score for the research network indicated that, although it was a sparsely populated network (D = 9.5%), the pattern of incoming ties (indegree) was somewhat centralized (CD = 44%). Thus, it was appropriate to further investigate these findings by trying to find out who were the ‘key players’ (Borgatti, 2003) within this network. Degree centrality measures allow us to identify the individuals with the most access to and/or the most control over resources within the network. In this section, I focus solely on the research network in order to demonstrate how different levels of network analysis can complement each other and contribute to a more robust understanding of what is happening beneath the surface of a network. In the context of the CYMH study, we are looking at how patterns of interaction enable or restrict the flow of research knowledge.We know that in the CYMH research network, coaches are more often sought out as sources of research knowledge. Coaches are likely to be among the central figures in this network. In addition to looking at the raw data and seeing who has the highest indegree centrality scores, drawing a network map using degree centrality scores as an attribute of the node is a useful complementary technique. Consider Figure 10.5. It presents the research network, only this time the size of the nodes in this map corresponds with indegree centrality scores (differentiating it from the map in Figure 10.3). The larger the

186  Joelle Rodway 21

9

10 32

28 33

8

29 15

3 35

31 7

2

23

24

14

36

20 30

19

1

22 16

25

17

12

34 18 11

27

26

6 4

13 5 37

FIGURE 10.5 CYMH

research knowledge network map with nodes sized by indegree centrality. The bigger the node size, the more ties that actor receives. White triangles represent CYMH coaches, black circles represent cohort 1 MHLs, and grey circles represent cohort 2 MHLs.

node, the more times that actor provided research-based information to a colleague within the network (i.e., received an incoming tie). From this network map, it is immediately evident that there are four individuals (#3, 20, 31, and 34) whose nodes are much larger than the others, meaning they were more frequently sought out as sources of research knowledge within this network. The other visualized node attributes in this map—program role (coaches or MHL) and cohort membership (cohort 1 or 2)—reveal that two of these people are coaches (white triangles #3 and 20) and two are cohort 1 MHLs (black circles #31 and 34). Based on node size, it is also evident that the remaining program staff are also more often the sources of research-based information than other MHLs within the network, although to a much lesser extent. This has added a new layer to our understanding of this network. In order to make sense of these findings, however, we need to return to our theoretical understanding of the implications of these patterns and consider what the consequences of these centralized patterns may be for mobilizing research knowledge within the Child and Youth Mental Health program. We know that the research network was not cohesive because of its low level of activity and the fact that there is a subset of individuals who function as the predominant research providers. The findings at both levels suggest that some people yield greater control over the flow of research knowledge and that the long-term

Getting beneath the surface  187

sustainability of the network is vulnerable. Figure 10.6 illustrates what happens to the CYMH research network when the key players are removed (see also Rodway, 2015a). These network maps clearly show that when the four key players are removed, network activity reduces by more than half (note the decrease in density score from 9.5%–4.4%). When we remove the other dominant sources of researchbased information from the network (i.e., the remaining coaches), there is a further reduction in network activity where only 2.6% of all possible ties are present; the network almost completely falls apart (see Prell, 2012). These findings also reveal a hierarchical structure in terms of who is providing research information to whom within the CYMH program. Some individuals wield more power and control over what research knowledge gets mobilized within the network and who has access to it through the informal research network.Think back to our initial discussion about actors and ties where we learned that most ties within the network were not reciprocal (i.e., mutual ties). This finding also gives strength to the argument that there are a few prestigious actors within the research network whose activity dominates the exchange of research knowledge within the group. Degree centrality measures are sensitive to the size of the network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and can only be used meaningfully in comparisons among actors within the same network (Prell, 2012). As demonstrated here, when whole network-level analyses indicate centralized patterns of activity within a network, degree centrality measures can be used to determine who the prominent actors All ties (D = 9.5%)

29

8

31 7

2

3

35

10

32

28

33 15

9

21

24

23

36

20 14

19

1

30

22 16

25

17

12

34 18

27

26

6

11

13

4 5 37 FIGURE 10.6A  An

illustration of the devolution of the research knowledge network once central figures are removed from the network map.

Key Players and coaches removed (D = 2.6%) 21 9 10 32 26 8

33

29

15 2

23

35

7 24 36 30

14 19

1

22 17

16

25

27

26 12

18 11

6 4

13 5 37

FIGURE 10.6B 

Key Players removed (D = 4.4%) 21 26

9

33

32

10 6

25

15

7

2

35

23

24

14

36 30

19

22

27

26 12 18 11

6 4

13 5 37

FIGURE 10.6C 

Getting beneath the surface  189

within a network are in terms of both centrality and prestige. In this case, although all coaches are central within the research knowledge network, there are two program staff members in particular (#3 and 20) who are more prestigious than others within the given network pattern given the larger number of incoming ties each of these people possesses. Furthermore, as the network map clearly illustrates, there are two MHLs who also stand out as central and prestigious network actors. By using whole network measures to help identify properties of interest to focus on in other types of analysis (e.g., egocentric level), we are able to develop rich quantitative descriptions of understandings of the ways in which people are interacting with each other within a network. In the next section, I summarize everything we learned about the CYMH information networks through our use of social network theory and analysis methods.

10.8 What SNA revealed about knowledge mobilization in the CYMH initiative The Child and Youth Mental Health initiative represents a particular type of Professional Learning Network—a research brokering network that endeavored to connect school district personnel with research knowledge to facilitate the development of evidence-informed school mental health policy. The program’s theory of action assumed that by assigning a formal coach with whom MHLs could interact throughout the year in addition to their cohort colleagues, school district personnel would have access to the resources they need to develop and implement research-based mental health programs that respond to local needs. In this research, I used social network theory and methods to investigate how patterns of informal interaction (i.e., outside of their formal network learning events) within the CYMH program facilitated and/or constrained the ways in which school district Mental Health Leaders could find, understand, share, and use research knowledge to carry out this work. As demonstrated in this chapter, social network analysis methods generated several insights about CYMH’s networks, enabling a comparison between the flow of general information and research knowledge within the group. At the whole network level, it was clear that there were low levels of activity within the network, particularly in the informal exchange of research knowledge. This finding suggests that formal professional learning events may have played a more significant role in the mobilizing of research knowledge among the MHLs. Because the formal learning opportunities were a key part of the CYMH strategy (see Rodway, 2015b), this may not be viewed as problematic by the network’s leadership team. However, if the project leadership was relying on the informal CYMH networks to mobilize knowledge further (research and otherwise), the patterns of interaction as presented in these networks suggest that these resources are unlikely to move quickly and efficiently, particularly given that the network activity seems to focus on a particular subset of individuals in both cases.This highlights the ways in which social network findings must be interpreted in relation to the program itself, offering a valuable

190  Joelle Rodway

feedback mechanism while providing information about patterns of interaction and how they affect the work within the PLN. These findings were enriched by looking at activity at the individual level. It was clear that coaches were more active than MHLs in the general information network. CYMH coaches sought information from, and provided information to, their colleagues more often than MHLs in this network. If the program’s theory of action was that the informal networks would provide opportunities for MHLs to interact with each other, these findings suggest that this is not happening frequently. Within the research knowledge network, coaches provided research knowledge much more often than MHLs, confirming a hierarchical network structure that focused on a small number of actors whose removal would result in almost a complete devolution of the network. Such a structure can serve to constrain information flow in that it limits what knowledge is being shared and with whom. That said, this level of centralization might be expected given the early days of the initiative (remember the data covered the first two years of the program, which technically served as a pilot for the program). It could be that the program leadership wanted to control the flow of research knowledge, in which case these findings would not be problematic at all. This highlights the importance of viewing social network findings not only within the boundaries of a particular theoretical frame, but also within the context of the Professional Learning Network itself. The desired activities and aims of the PLN will also inform how this information should be interpreted.

10.9 Moving network research forward Network ideas are becoming increasingly more popular in education. Over the past two decades, there has been a growing body of research that considers the characteristics of effective networks (e.g., Hite, Williams & Baugh, 2005; Lieberman & Grolnick, 1996; Rincón-Gallardo & Fullan, 2016).Yet, this research often favors the external conditions that support network activity (e.g., shared purpose, distributed leadership) without explicitly or only cursorily addressing the ways in which people’s interactions with each other enable or restrict achieving network objectives. Network research needs innovative research methods and designs to fully understand how networks function as strategies for school improvement and educational change. In this chapter, I presented a brief introduction to social network analysis, providing educators with a variety of tools and concepts that will enable them to develop robust descriptions of how their networks work from a sociological point of view. SNA allows us to focus on the connections that develop when people (or organizations or groups) interact, enabling the deconstruction of complex network activity in order to understand how networks function. Paying attention to the formal structures and supporting organizational conditions of networks is essential, but it is equally important to acknowledge informal structures (i.e., patterns of interaction) in order to really understand what is happening beneath the surface of Professional Learning Networks.

Getting beneath the surface  191

To be clear, SNA is not a panacea for the limitations of existing network research; indeed, it has many limitations of its own, including many ethical implications that are important to consider (see Prell, 2012 for an excellent discussion of ethical issues to consider). Despite the technicalities of SNA, however, it is important for system and school leaders to consider the ways in which social network insights can help inform the design and implementation of Professional Learning Networks. My example of the Child and Youth Mental Health program shows how patterns of informal interaction may deviate from a program’s formal theory of action, providing opportunities for reflection and adjustment based on the feedback provided through a social network lens. As we move network research forward in education, we need to discuss alternative ways to study networks in order to understand how they carry out their work. We need to foster a discussion about innovative approaches to studying networks, not only as objects of scholarly interest in and of themselves, but also in terms of how we can employ a variety of methods in order to deconstruct the ways in which the actors within a network are (or are not) connected to each other and with what consequences.Taking a social network perspective, from both theoretical and analytical points of view, is a step forward in understanding the important contribution and potential of the power of the social side of Professional Learning Networks to support sustainable improvement in education.

Notes 1 2

3

4

5

The formula for determining the maximum number of ties is the total number of people in the network (N) multiplied by this number minus one, N (N−1). Because the social network data are interdependent, you cannot always apply standard statistical procedures to these data because they violate the assumption of independence required in these cases. Consequently, measures and procedures have been developed to deal with these particularities. When comparing the density of networks of the same size (as in this case), bootstrap techniques are employed in a procedure very similar to a standard paired sample t-test to make the network comparisons (see note 4). See Hanneman and Riddle (2005) for more details. There are many different types of centrality that extend beyond degree-based measures. Borgatti, Everett and Johnson (2013), Carolan (2013), Prell (2012) and Wasserman and Faust (1994) provide good explanations of the different types of centrality that can be considered both conceptually and methodologically when seeking to understand how networks function. In this chapter, I have reported the raw scores, which are the actual number of ties that people possess within the network. However, the reporting of raw scores does not facilitate comparison of networks of different size (i.e., two different networks with different members). In these cases, you would need to report normalized scores, which are easily attainable in social network software. See Carolan (2013) for further explanation. Degree centrality scores can be exported into a quantitative data analysis software package (e.g., SPSS) where you can conduct conventional tests of mean difference to investigate whether or not there are statistically significant differences in the activity levels between networks and among different groups (e.g., coaches and MHLs) within the same network. For example, I conducted paired samples t-tests that indicated statistically significant differences (that is to say that these findings didn’t happen by chance) in the average number of outdegree (outgoing) and indegree (incoming) ties

192  Joelle Rodway

between the two networks. In both situations, the research network possesses, on average, significantly fewer number of ties (outdegree: t (36) = 3.621, p < .001; indegree: t (36) – 5.081, p < .001). Furthermore, independent samples t-tests revealed that Mental Health Leaders receive statistically significant fewer number of incoming ties within the research network (t (4.29) = ‒2.859, p < .05). Again, this combination of social network and conventional statistical analysis techniques helps further our insight into what exactly is happening within these networks.

References Borgatti, S. P. (2003). The key player problem. In R. Breiger, K. Carley & P. Pattison (Eds.), Dynamic social network modelling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers (pp. 241–252). National Academy of Sciences Press. Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 17–29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Carolan, B. (2013). Social network analysis and education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. Cross, R. & Parker, A. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding what really gets done in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Liou,Y.,Tuytens, M., & del Fresno, M. (2015).Why so difficult? Exploring negative relationships between educational leaders: the role of trust, climate, and efficacy. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 1–38. Davies, H. T. O., & Nutley, S. M. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used: Guidance in the development of new empirical research. New York: William T. Grant Foundation. Deal, T., Purinton, T., & Waetjen, D. C. (2009). Making sense of social networks in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (Eds.) (2015). Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. New York: Springer International Publishing. Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr. edu/~hanneman/). Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. LISR, 18, 323–342.

Getting beneath the surface  193

Hite, J., Williams, E., & Baugh S. (2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122. Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York: Oxford University Press. Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 195–222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7–45. Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127. www.jstor.org/ sTable/3088904 Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39. Prell, C. (2012). Social network analysis: History, theory, methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Quintero, E. (2017). Teaching in context: The social side of educational reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer:The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267. Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Fullan, M. (2016). Essential features of effective networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5–22. Robbins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rodway, J. (2015a). Connecting the dots: Understanding the flow of research knowledge within a research brokering network. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(123). Rodway, J. (2015b). Mobilizing research knowledge through social networks. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Toronto. Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis: A handbook (4th edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. (2015). Intra- and inter-school interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110. Spillane, J. P., & Shirrell, M. (2017). Breaking up isn’t hard to do: Exploring the dissolution of teachers’ and school leaders’ work related ties. Education Administration Quarterly. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/0013161X1769655 Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Vodicka, D. (2015, August 19). The story behind the story: Social capital and the Vista Unified School District. [Blog post]. Retrieved from www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/ story-behind-the-story-social-capital-and-the-vista-unified-school-district Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11 ESTABLISHING SUSTAINABLE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT THROUGH PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NETWORKS Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

11.1 Introduction Despite promising research results, professional development and school improvement do not automatically result from working in Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). The effects may be small and results have been mixed (Chapman & Muijs, 2014; Hubers et al., 2017; Lomos et al., 2011; Prenger et al., submitted). For example, research by Hubers et al. (2017) shows how, after external support was withdrawn, schools struggled with implementing the products of the PLN in question, as well as with keeping the PLN itself going. Given the importance of sustained school improvement, this chapter describes how such improvement can be supported by teachers working in Professional Learning Networks. First, we will explain what sustained school improvement means (11.2). Second, we will describe how sustained school improvement is influenced by the combination of school policy and practice (11.3). Finally, we will describe how six key conditions for working in PLNs (focus, collaboration, individual/group learning, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and boundary crossing) can be leveraged to support sustained school improvement (11.4) and give our concluding remarks (11.5).

11.2 Sustained school improvement The goal of a PLN is never simply to be a Professional Learning Network (Morrissey, 2000). Rather, a PLN is a means to an end (Stoll et al., 2006). Whether a PLN is established within a school or between schools, it is considered to promote sustained school improvement when it meets several criteria (see Hubers, in preparation, for an elaborate description of these criteria).The first is when the PLN facilitates longterm changes. These changes occur not only in individual teacher and/or school leader behavior, but also within the school (or network of schools) as a whole. This means, for example, that teachers apply and continue to improve the products and

Establishing sustainable school improvement  195

outcomes of the PLN (e.g., lesson materials, a new approach to conducting research in the school), and that this work is facilitated by their school as a whole (e.g., it is embedded in the school culture, the appropriate support is available). The second criterion is that these changes in teachers’ behavior and the school as a whole should always result in measurable positive outcomes. After all, why continue to work with PLNs if not to achieve desired outcomes? According to Stoll et al. (2006), the outcomes of PLNs should always be experienced by students, even if only indirectly. For example, when teachers re-design their science curriculum to motivate and excite their students for a career in science, but they notice that this does not have any effect on students’ attitude towards science (or maybe even a negative effect), the teachers should revisit their PLN’s working methods and the products that resulted from those methods. The final criterion for a PLN to promote sustained school improvement is that all involved educators display ‘agency’. This means that they do more than just make lasting changes in their behavior. As Hargreaves and Fink (2000: 32) argue: “sustainability […] addresses how particular initiatives can be developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment, now and in the future.” Thus, teachers and school leaders should actively try to innovate their practices, and should be able to revise the structure of the PLN if changing circumstances require it. In other words, they are active ‘change agents’ instead of passive followers or implementers. To summarize, PLNs promote sustained school improvement when long-term effective changes attributable to working with the PLN are made in individual teacher behavior and the schools’ everyday practices, while all involved display agency. But how can we achieve this?

11.3 Establishing and sustaining school improvement through PLNs School improvement can become sustained through changes in schools’ organizational routines. Organizational routines are recurring actions that structure everyday practice in schools (March & Simon, 1958; Nelson & Winter, 1982).This means that no one decision, formal structure or person is responsible for whether or not teachers change their behavior effectively: these all mutually influence each other (Spillane, 2012). This mutual influence comes through the two aspects making up an organizational routine, which more or less means the school’s policy and practices (Sherer & Spillane, 2011). Policy includes the broader organizational system of the school. It refers to the standard operating procedures, taken-for-granted norms, and educators’ subjective understanding of the policy. An example of this is the school’s vision regarding working with PLNs. In contrast, the performative aspect of organizational routines includes the actual work practices; thus, who is doing what when. An example of this is the everyday practice of participating in a PLN. Policy and practice mutually influence each other (Spillane, 2012), which means that policy can inform practice, and vice versa. The opposite also holds: practice

196  Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

can be hindered by a (perceived) lack of connection to policy, and policy can be hindered by a lack of (perceived) connection to practice. This means that school leaders and teachers need to keep each other informed and be aware of each other’s accomplishments and challenges. This all might seem quite logical, but in everyday educational practice, keeping each other informed about policy and practice appears to be quite a challenge. For example, a study by Hubers et al. (2017) showed that some school leaders believed they only needed to provide a loosely structured policy for data use, and that those educators who worked in a PLN to learn about data use should take the lead in informing the rest of the school staff about the policy. In contrast, the educators who were part of the PLN were becoming increasingly frustrated because they did not know why the school leader wanted them to participate in the PLN, and were disappointed by the perceived lack of policy regarding data use. This scenario illustrates how a school (or a network of schools) can easily get into a situation where every stakeholder is waiting for another one to make a move. No one is at fault here: you can imagine why a school leader would like to be informed by the PLN members before he or she specifies the policy, whereas you can also imagine why PLN members would want to receive clear directions before they would feel safe providing such information. In such situations, it is key to be aware of (possible) interdependencies, and make expectations explicit. Moreover, special attention can be given to shaping routines for policy and practice. Before we address how organizational routines can be shaped, we bring up two key observations. The first is that sustaining school improvement is often misconceived as something that needs to be done at the end of working with a PLN or participating in an intervention. Rather, promoting sustained school improvement (and thus long-term effectiveness) through PLNs needs to be considered even before the PLN is established. The second observation is that sustained school improvement will not happen overnight. As Desimone (2002) notes, it might take five to ten years before a school is completely reformed.This is not meant to be discouraging, but rather to illustrate how long it might take before working with effective PLNs becomes business as usual (e.g., resources do not get cut off, there is a clear policy, everyone knows how to structure the PLN meetings). This does not mean that the benefits of working with a PLN will not be reaped earlier. One can benefit from a PLN from the first meetings onward, for example, because team members are excited to substantially revise their curriculum. To get the PLN and its products completely embedded within everyday practice will take more time, though. However, that time is likely to be shorter when there is a clear focus on sustained school improvement early on.

11.4 Supporting conditions for PLNs In Chapter 1, six factors and conditions that support sustained school improvement through PLNs were presented: focus, collaboration, individual/group learning, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and boundary crossing. Here, these conditions are briefly

Establishing sustainable school improvement  197

summarized, after which we will illustrate how they can be put in place in everyday practice. To ensure the supportiveness of each condition, the policy and practice related to these conditions needs to be evaluated regularly to ensure that all parties involved are still on the same page. The supporting conditions are interconnected, meaning that changes in one are likely to cause changes in the others (Earl et al., 2006).

11.4.1 Focus The first condition that can support sustained school improvement through PLNs is focus. This condition plays out on (at least) two levels. At the level of the PLN, focus refers to having a shared sense of purpose among the individual PLN members in relation to the specific goals of the PLN. Every member does not need to have exactly the same goal for participating in the PLN, as goals can vary due to individual learning goals, vision on education, and so forth. However, the more these goals are aligned and PLN members agree on the reasons why they are working in this group, the easier it will be to keep up the good work and meet everyone’s expectations. The second level at which focus plays a role is that of the PLN as embedded in the individual schools. Here, focus refers to more than just having a shared sense of purpose among the PLN members, their colleagues and the school leaders; it also refers to agreeing to prioritize the PLN above other demands of everyday education. Thus, this means that PLN members are supported in relation to some of their other tasks (e.g., coverage for teaching is provided) because they are working in the PLN. Keep in mind that this second type of focus is essential in order to sustain the first. For example, when PLN members feel that the school leader is not fully committed to their work in the PLN (e.g., when the PLN members are given too many competing tasks), it will distract their focus and attention from their work in the PLN.Therefore, keeping the focus aligned at the level of the PLN and at the level of the PLN within the school are both essential for a properly functioning PLN. How can such clear focus be attained? Well, the most essential task for school leaders and teachers is to (1) establish a certain goal, or flag a certain problem/challenge/ambition that needs to be addressed, and (2) determine the best strategy to solve that problem or work on that ambition. Here, careful consideration is necessary regarding the choice of a PLN over other types of change strategies. So, think about several ways to address the goal, and establish the pros and cons for each. When everyone agrees that the PLN is the best way to move forward, considerable shared focus will already be in place beforehand. Regarding the focus within the PLN, it is advisable to find common ground at an early stage of the process, preferably before the start of the PLN. Members do not need to have identical goals for their participation in the PLN. However, their goals do need to provide direction for active participation, leave room for collaborative operationalization, and be in line with the available leadership and facilitation. Different strategies can be used to communicate expectations and share

198  Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

ideas about what the exact purpose of the PLN should be. Examples include brainstorming with the whole team (see, for example, Chapter 2), or an initial discussion in pairs and then a whole-group discussion. The chairperson needs to make sure that a possibly divergent phase is followed by a convergent phase, and that a common purpose is formulated within the first few meetings. A good balance needs to be found between input from all individual members and a clear direction for continuing with the PLN process.

11.4.2 Collaboration and individual/group learning The second supportive condition is collaboration. This refers to the ways and extent to which PLN members work together, but, in fact, it begins with who will need to work together. When deciding who will participate in the PLN, some obvious criteria will be used, such as who would have the time to participate and whose function profile matches that of the PLN’s goal(s). However, other factors might be just as important. We know from our research, for example, that prior knowledge, experience, and individual motivation are important factors influencing teachers’ learning (Poortman, 2007). Another consideration is educators’ relationships with other colleagues and their status and position within the school. For example, one school chose well-liked and respected teachers to participate in the PLN, as they believed that colleagues would be most likely to follow the directions of these “popular” teachers (Hubers, 2016; also see Chapter 3). In contrast, some schools deliberately chose some critical teachers who, in general, resisted change.Their idea was that when even these teachers participated in the change, the rest of their colleagues would be most likely to follow. When team members start working in the PLN, a way for team members to collaborate deeply and actively needs to be found. On the one hand, it can be easy and efficient to divide up tasks. On the other hand, however, it is essential that team members do things together to facilitate group understanding. Related to this is the supportive condition of individual/group learning. This refers to the idea that individual members’ prior knowledge influences not only their own learning, but also the learning of the entire group (and vice versa). This also means that an individual member’s lack of learning can hamper the learning process of the entire group.Therefore, it is essential that a fine balance is found between involving all team members in all tasks (which is time-consuming, but will build collective understanding) and dividing up responsibilities (which is the most efficient option). Of course, all team members need not always interact with all of their fellow team members, nor does everything that is done by individual team members need to be accounted for by the entire team. However, the less this is the case, the less likely it is that the PLN members will become a team with unified aims and behaviors (Wenger, 1998). To ensure that successful collaboration can actually take place, a supportive school policy should be in place. This policy should be aimed at freeing up time and/or resources for the PLN members. For example, successful collaboration will

Establishing sustainable school improvement  199

be hindered if there is not an hour in PLN members’ work schedule when they can meet to discuss their progress. This might seem almost too obvious to mention, but in practice, it happens regularly that PLN members cannot ever meet. In such scenarios, competing demands are often listed as reasons why the schedule cannot be cleared for the PLN. Fortunately, if school leaders and PLN members have clearly prioritized their PLN and know why it is essential to work with it (corresponding to Section 11.4.1), such issues are likely to be reduced.

11.4.3 Reflective professional inquiry Teachers usually value highly the opportunity to meet with other teachers (from other schools) to exchange ideas and share anecdotes. Working in a PLN, however, is about much more than talking with others about what is going on in everyday practice. Therefore, the third condition supportive of a PLN is reflective professional inquiry. This refers to conversations about the educational issues or problems PLN members have to deal with. They should: discuss their underlying beliefs about teaching; share and clarify their pedagogical motives; collectively question ineffective teaching routines; and find proactive ways to acknowledge and respond to differences and conflict (Little & Horn, 2007;Vangrieken et al., 2015). There are different ways to ensure reflective professional inquiry. For example, learning conversations can be used to make sense of various forms of evidence in order to drive real changes in student learning (Earl & Timperley, 2008). See Chapter 3 for additional information about these conversations. Moreover, stimulating team members’ active personal engagement through the use of brainstorming sessions (e.g., about what activities can be done and why?) and reflective exercises (What did we learn from our PLN? Are we surprised by some of our accomplishments?) will be beneficial as well (Hubers, Poortman, Schildkamp, Pieters & Handelzalts, 2016).

11.4.4 Leadership The fourth characteristic that can support sustained school improvement through PLNs is leadership, as school leaders are crucial for achieving sustainable educational improvement (e.g., Harris & Jones, 2010; Muijs & Harris, 2003). Here, we will focus our attention on the formal leadership role, which is crucial for stimulating focus, providing both intellectual and instrumental support, monitoring development, and disseminating information (Earl et al., 2006). School leaders can accomplish this by displaying transformational leadership. When leaders want to display transformational leadership, there are three dimensions to take into account (Geijsel et al., 2009). The first is building a vision, which refers to the development of a shared vision, goals, and priorities. School leaders need to think about these aspects for the long term. For example, sometimes teachers are supported to participate in a PLN for one year, but no one has thought about what happens after that, regarding neither the outcomes nor about possible

200  Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

further participation. In addition, the school leader needs to think more broadly than just about the teacher(s) participating. How will the process and results of the PLN be communicated and shared with others in the school? How will the school make use of the results, but also provide input (and maybe even some direction) to the PLN? How does PLN participation correspond with the school’s vision for school improvement? These are all issues school leaders need to think about before, during and after working with a PLN. This is the only way to ensure that their investment in the PLN will actually lead to sustained school improvement beyond the learning outcomes of the individual PLN members. Thus, school leaders need to develop a strong, clear, and well-developed policy for the changes they would like to achieve. This policy should cover both short- and long-term goals, which logically build on each other. The second dimension of transformational leadership is individual consideration, which includes attending to the feelings and needs of individual teachers (Geijsel et al., 2009). Teachers’ motivation to change their everyday practice shows a lot of variability (Hubers & Endedijk, in preparation). Some teachers will immediately start experimenting with new practices, whereas others need to take additional time to reflect on the required changes and think them through before they enact them. Both situations are fine, but it means that different teachers may differ greatly in their needs from school leaders (e.g., regarding feedback, compliments, resources, and directions for the next step to take).Therefore, the school leader must be responsive when talking to these teachers and addressing their needs. The final dimension of transformational leadership is providing intellectual stimulation (Geijsel et al., 2009). This refers to supporting teacher professional development and constantly challenging teachers to readdress their knowledge and daily practice. Previous research has illustrated that teachers really liked it when their school leader gave them room to experiment with different types of changes (Hubers & Endedijk, in preparation). Moreover, this was combined with a strong culture of support, which made teachers feel that it was okay to make mistakes.This supported their drive to continuously improve themselves. Of course, being a leader does not mean that one needs to impose policy onto teachers. In fact, developing your policy in close cooperation with teachers will support them in investing in the required change (Moolenaar, et al., 2010). In addition, policy and practice mutually influence each other (Spillane, 2012); see also Section 11.3. Therefore, it is crucial that school leaders develop a policy and take measures to ensure that this policy can be enacted. This can be done, for example, by scheduling meetings to discuss the policy and the practical working-out of it. In so doing, it is essential to be responsive to (and explicitly welcome!) input by the PLN members. It might be that the policy developed by the school leaders is not (yet) feasible or too vague. It happens often that teachers, when being interviewed for a research project, are able to describe some sort of vision for the school about the desired outcomes of a change strategy. But, when asked what this means for their everyday practice or what they would like to achieve to enact that vision, they do not have any idea. So, ensuring successful collaboration between PLN members

Establishing sustainable school improvement  201

and the school leader will lead to the best policy and practice. Policy needs to meet practice and vice versa.

11.4.5 Boundary crossing The final condition important for sustained school improvement through PLNs is boundary crossing, which refers to a specific type of knowledge sharing. Every time a change strategy (e.g., a new science curriculum) is implemented by a small group of educators from a school (or group of schools), it is important that knowledge ultimately flows throughout the rest of the school(s). However, this is challenging, because only that small set of educators is familiar with the change.Those individuals have a shared history invested in the change, and have found a way to work with it and talk about it. For other colleagues, it will be difficult to understand this immediately. For example, educators who participate in a data team (see Chapter 5) have gained knowledge about data use, whereas their colleagues have not. Thus, to get everyone within the school ‘on-board’, it is important that members of the PLN share their knowledge.To do so, they need to cross the boundaries that arise between themselves and their colleagues.This will promote not only their colleagues’ understanding of the change, but also the PLN members’ understanding. After all, explaining something to another person helps you restructure and explicate your own knowledge. Before boundary crossing can take place, school leaders and PLN members must collaboratively create a vision about why knowledge needs to be shared, and what opportunities they see to do so (e.g., meetings and study days that are already part of everyone’s calendar). In other words: what kind of (re)actions are being expected from colleagues not participating in the PLN? When all involved parties agree upon such a vision, steps can be taken to ensure that this vision can be enacted. For example, think about modifying the school calendar ahead of time to schedule the required meetings or study days and allocating (if necessary) a certain part of the budget to knowledge-sharing activities. Before the actual knowledge-sharing process can take place, PLN members need to ask themselves several questions: 1 Given the vision for boundary crossing, what content should be shared? For example, when the PLN designed a new lesson format for Geography, and all Geography teachers in the network of schools should use that format, what knowledge would they need to have in order to do so? Consider various ‘types’ of knowledge when thinking about this (e.g., knowledge about a specific subject, certain information and communications technology (ICT) tools, school regulations/policy, background information about why you designed the format and how it should be used). 2 At what level of detail should knowledge be shared? Schools often remain stuck at the level of informing colleagues that certain activities are taking place or what the outcomes of such activities were. This is, of course, a great way to start sharing your knowledge, but it needs to be taken to the next level.

202  Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

For example, this can happen through making ‘how-to-do-this’ lists and/or explaining the underlying principles behind certain strategies (Why do we need to do it? Why do we think that would work?). In the end, addressing knowledge at these two levels will go a longer way than the factual “we are working in a PLN and we are doing this and that” knowledge. 3 What knowledge-sharing activities could be used? The most effective way to share knowledge with colleagues is through active personal engagement, for example, by participating in workshops, or observing PLN meetings (Hubers, et al., accepted for publication). This type of activity is preferred above all others, because it gives the colleagues a concrete idea about the PLN and what is being expected of them. However, this activity is hardly ever chosen, because educators often fear that it will take too much time to organize it. This is not necessarily the case. Try to use mostly the materials you have already developed, and remember that even a concrete experience of 30 minutes might be enough to trigger colleagues’ enthusiasm. Besides providing active personal engagement, personal communication can be used (e.g., formal presentations, updates during a meeting, or even talking during a lunch break). However, the most often chosen, yet least likely to be effective, activity is written communication (e.g., an email or a piece in the staff newsletter). The idea behind using written text is that it is a relatively fast way to reach all colleagues. But colleagues will not always read those written pieces, and/or may not understand them in the intended way. Therefore, it seems advisable to use written communication only for hardcopy reference and to accompany the knowledge shared during active personal engagement and/or personal communication.

11.5 Concluding remarks In this chapter, we have described how PLNs can be used to establish sustained school improvement. This means that, through working in PLNs, long-term effective changes that are attributable to working with the PLN can be made in individual teacher behavior and everyday school practice, while those involved display agency. Moreover, we identified how six conditions that support working in PLNs (focus, collaboration, individual/group learning, reflective professional inquiry, leadership and boundary crossing) can enhance sustained school improvement. In providing these conditions, schools’ individual (learning) context needs to be taken into account. For example, in some schools, teachers will benefit from tight and structured policy and leadership, whereas in others, teachers are used to having responsibility and experimenting with the required changes. So, we have discussed concrete strategies to support boundary crossing, but the success of these strategies also depends on the ‘fit’ with current practice and the larger policy context, as described in Chapter 1. Therefore, this chapter is meant to inspire PLN participants – both individual educators and the school organization as a whole – to think early on about how to promote sustainable school improvement by participating in a PLN. That is how schools can achieve lasting benefit from learning networks.

Establishing sustainable school improvement  203

References Chapman, C., and Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 351–393. Desimone, L. M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479. Earl, L. M., and Timperley, H. (Eds.). (2008). Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (Vol. 1). New York: Springer Science and Business Media. Earl, L., Katz, S., Elgie, S., Ben Jaafar, S., and Foster, L. (2006). How networked communities work. Final report of the three-year External Evaluation of the Networked Learning Communities Programme. Nottingham, UK: National College of School Leadership. Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., and Kruger, M. D. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427. Hargreaves, A., and Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 30–34. Harris, A., and Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181. 10.1177/1365480210376487 Hubers, M. D. (2016). Capacity building by data team members to sustain schools’ data use. Doctoral Dissertation. Enschede, The Netherlands: Gildeprint. Hubers, M. D. (in preparation). Paving the road to sustainable school improvement. Hubers, M. D., and Endedijk, M. D. (in preparation). Persistence prevails: Supporting sustainable teacher professional development regarding STEM education. Hubers, M. D., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., Pieters, J. M., and Handelzalts, A. (2016). Opening the black box: Knowledge creation in data teams. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 41–68. Hubers, M. D., Poortman, C. L., Schildkamp, K., and Pieters, J. M. (accepted for publication). Spreading the word: Boundary crossers building collective capacity for data use. Teachers College Record. Hubers, M. D., Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., and Pieters, J. M. (2017). The quest for sustained data use: Developing organizational routines. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 509-521. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.007 Little, J. W., and Horn, I. S. (2007). Normalizing problems of practice: Converting routine conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll and K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79–92). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., and Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148. March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., and Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670. Morrissey, M. S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Muijs, D., and Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management and Administration, 31(4), 437–448. Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

204  Mireille D. Hubers and Cindy L. Poortman

Poortman, C. L. (2007). Workplace learning processes in senior secondary vocational education. Enschede: University of Twente. Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., and Handelzalts, A. (submitted). The effects of networked professional learning communities. Sherer, J. Z., and Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools:The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. Teachers College Record, 118(2), 113–141. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., and Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

12 LOOKING BACK AND MOVING FORWARD Where to next for networks of learning? Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll1

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly – Martin Luther King In 1963, while sitting inside of a Birmingham jail, Dr. Martin Luther King penned a powerful letter that at its core reminds us we are part of an interdependent and interconnected system and that injustice to one is injustice to all. In essence, in both our personal and professional lives, we are part of an inescapable network and understanding how those networks are connected to our work and purpose is critical. In this chapter, in taking inspiration from the work of the preceding authors, we also want to reflect on some broader cross cutting ideas as well as offer some promising areas to push on in the future. We have purposefully taken a more narrative approach in this chapter to approximate the role of a discussant. The rich studies and thoughtful connections to the literature, which have proceeded this chapter have laid a tremendous intellectual platform upon which we can thoughtfully consider the work, connect to our own experience and thinking in the space, and offer some potential high leverage points.

The foundation Imagine three masons who are tasked with building a new cathedral. The first mason views herself as a layer of bricks, the second a maker of walls, and the third as someone who is not laying bricks nor building walls, but rather sees herself as a craftsperson whose purpose is building a cathedral. How often do we become so focused on the bricks or the individuals in our work that we forget that in our

206  Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

own way we are a part of a collective that is building a larger cathedral of learning? Although the bricks are important, the mortar in our work, as illustrated in these chapters, is the social glue of authentic relationship that binds us together to unleash collective energy and intelligence in service of meeting important goals. In this volume, we like to think that the authors are also building something collectively greater than their individual contributions. They are weaving together ideas, concepts, and empirical study around networks and how these networks form and fit to address pressing issues related to education conceptualized broadly. The book points out the criticality of social ties and the importance of connecting to others in support of getting meaningful research and change done. However, despite the valiant efforts of the authors, there are many voices who still remain focused on individual capacity rather than the potential of the collective and interdependence that we argue is necessary for success. The chapters in this book illustrate the importance of moving a community of learners to become a community that learns – a subtle but important difference. Learning and leading is increasingly interactive, social, and at its best creates change in the learners, leaders, and the systems in which they operate. We live in a social world and as such are deeply affected by others, sometimes in ways in which we are unaware. In fact, a growing body of research suggests that even our happiness, health, weight, and even wealth is influenced by the social networks in which we reside. Bringing these ideas to education is the real promise of this work, and as we begin to come together as a network research community, we are making important strides toward this potential. The ability to work well with others, tap into networks, and draw on collective intelligence is of critical importance, as we move deeper into a knowledge society in which collaboration, emotional intelligence, social skills, and connecting to an interdependent social network are increasingly necessary, and are grounded in good science as illustrated in these chapters. Newly developing concepts and findings from networks add to our knowledge and build on our own individual and collective ability to learn, lead, and leverage networks in support of organizational and individual change. At its core, this is the thread that ties this book together. Ideas such as crowd-sourcing, citizen scientists, and open source co-creation of knowledge reflect the new horizon in which change is taking place as outlined in the preceding pages, but we have much more to do. Better understanding of this fastevolving space from networks and beyond will add to our knowledge and help us to build our individual and collective ability to learn, lead, and enact fundamental change across the world. Our own research, the studies in this book, and a growing body of work from others in the space, suggests that the quantity and quality of social ties at both the individual and collective level are consequential for a host of valuable outcomes. In our opinion, the ideas outlined in these chapters connect us to a broader conception of networks that bear some deeper consideration.

Looking back and moving forward  207

Networks as catalyzers of change There is no shortage of ideas about how to bring about change in organizations and leveraging the collective intelligence in a system. Many change agents draw on a variety of formal structures, processes, and accountability levers to improve performance. However, while these more technical approaches at improving outcomes are important and have been well documented, what has been generally missing in the change equation – or at least neglected, especially in policy thinking – are relational linkages between individuals through which change moves. Refreshingly, this idea has received more attention recently, as is documented in these chapters. As such, frameworks and approaches that foreground the relational aspect of organizational change and leadership are becoming increasingly noticed and imperative.We are engaging more in relational space with a deeper understanding of its primacy in the work of change, and this is precisely what makes the content of this volume so timely. Social networks provide insights into how the social processes involved in change are stretched across individuals and levels within a system. This perspective entails a shift from a primary focus on the individual and the attributes of that individual to understanding the more dynamic supports and constraints of the larger social network in which that individual operates. Network studies focus on how the constellation of relationships in networks and between organizations can facilitate and constrain the flow of ‘relational resources’ (attitudes, beliefs, information, etc.).They also provide insight into how individuals and groups gain access to, are influenced by, and leverage these resources. The network perspective does not supplant the importance of individual attributes, but rather offers a complementary optic and set of methods for better understanding the dynamic influence of social processes involved in change as is clear from these chapters. Therefore, rather than trying to understand the process of change based on the attributes of an individual (gender, years of experience, training, education, beliefs, etc.), network scholars focus on the influence and outcome of an individual or organization’s ‘position’ vis-à-vis social ties with others, as well as the overall social structure of a network. In many cases, social network theorists suggest that the underlying social structure determines the type, access, and flow of resources to actors in the network leading some scholars to suggest that the old adage “It is not what you know, but who you know”, is more accurately, “Who you know defines what you know”. As these chapters point out, to be successful in evolving contexts, we must move beyond just developing individual capacity to better understanding the potential of the collective. As we have shown in our work, organizations have the ability to learn; in doing so, they must balance multiple demands and pressures, moving beyond traditional individual ‘quick fixes’ to leveraging existing capacities and developing new approaches. Although individual skills and training are useful, we have to consider a variety of types of ‘capital’ necessary for change to take place. As such we need systems that not only support the development of individual skill

208  Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

(human capital), but connecting those skill sets between individuals (social capital) in an intentional and strategic manner. Linking human and social capital and supporting individuals to engage their work in this manner creates innovation and opportunity in the form of professional capital, which has been central in our work. To be clear what we take from the chapters is not that social capital is a stand-alone or even a replacement for human capital, rather we are suggesting it takes both. When we consider the chapters, the social and human capital conversation becomes one more about background and foreground – not one form of capital or the other. The real strength as we can see from this volume are the points where these types of capital intersect, connect, and build upon one another. From our vantage point, which has been reinforced by the chapters in this book, we believe we are poised for a resurgence regarding the importance of social relationships in a variety of forms and in a host of contexts. Relationships have always been important, but now after enduring so many years of technical fixes, rigid accountability, and pressure/stress individuals are ready for a change. We see that change in terms of reinvesting in the human and social capital in systems of change.The work of the 21st century is not only about facts, figures, and rote learning, it is about generating intellectual and professional capital as well as creating, developing, managing, and exchanging knowledge as it exists in multiple arenas as can be gleaned from the chapters. Knowledge generation, therefore, is a socioculturally embedded process conducted through, between, among, and with people who reside in social networks and those networks are inescapably tied to the work of educators in a variety of contexts. It is the quantity and quality of ties that are consequential for both individual and collective outcomes as well as transformative change.

The quality of our relationships The importance of the ‘social work’ of change has been repeatedly shown in leadership research studies from a variety of sectors. Interpersonal skills such as facilitating, questioning, active listening, and collaborating are often assumed to be among the capabilities of most organizational members, but that assumption is often faulty and the absence of these skills can derail efforts. Research suggests that support and training around these important competencies can support collaborative work and that the quality of our relationships is of key importance. Moreover, as we will discuss below the role of affective ties are also significant as is the growing science around mindfulness. When we consider the quality of our relationships, we often think about ideas related to trust, which is either explicitly mentioned or referred to in the previous chapters. Trust is a critical and multi-faceted construct. When we say that we ‘trust’ someone it often includes ideas of benevolence, care, openness, and the ability to be vulnerable with one another. All interactions have a degree of risk associated with them and higher levels of trust reduce the ‘transaction cost’ of interacting. Trust is central because when it is present in networks, individuals are better able to share

Looking back and moving forward  209

more complex knowledge and avoid the social tax that is often associated with lowtrust environments. High-trust contexts support greater willingness for individuals to be vulnerable with one another in sharing areas of difficulty and challenge. To move forward educators in the current space, we must embrace the vulnerability it takes to be open and put the other ahead of ourselves. One idea hinted at in the chapters, but never directly and explicitly identified, is that excellence and change is interdependent, and the success or failure of one is the success or failure of all. Something Dr. King points out in his powerful letter. If we want to understand what is at the core of building networks, it is vulnerability and willingness to take a risk. Equity, innovation, improving practice, change and relationships all require a level of vulnerability. Allowing ourselves, and supporting the conditions for others to feel safe, is job one for change and growth.This became obvious to us as we looked across the chapters, and yet we rarely discuss this central term in the work. Wanting the best for ourselves and others who share our life or for the networks in which we work requires vulnerability and a commitment to supporting others. Without this critical element of personal and professional growth, deep and lasting change may be challenging. Therefore, merely providing time and directives to ‘work together’ does not necessarily result in meaningful collaboration between vertical and horizontal teams or build trust. Such sheer formal structure might unintentionally create a culture of contrived collegiality as opposed to authentic collaboration. In fact, ‘forced’ collaboration may create a rock and a hard place situation for an individual who is attempting to balance the strong informal social pressure not to collaborate and equally strong formal pressure to work together. ‘Resistance’ of someone in this sense does not reflect some clash over belief systems, but rather being caught between two powerful and opposing social forces. Creating and nurturing climates of support and intentionality will be critically important for deep-level collaboration to take place. In that spirit in this next section, we offer some areas of high leverage that the preceding chapters suggest.

Moving forward – where to next for networks of learning? Having looked back over the main core theme of the chapters, we now turn our attention to looking forward and suggest five areas and future directions to consider. Working toward conceptual clarity: Networks can appear and be sustained in a variety of settings with a multiplex cast of actors and organizations.This variety, as displayed in the chapters, is a strength of the work, and the authors provide interesting examples in multiple contexts that present useful insights as we discuss above. At the same time, while this work offers valuable perspectives, it also highlights the next generation of work in the network space in terms of sharper conceptual understanding and language. The strength of the variety of work in this text is both the biggest conceptual and practical hurdle that the larger field will need to overcome. The term ‘network’ needs more precision as, absent that clarity, it will be difficult for this

210  Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

developing space to make sense of findings from different places. The chapters in varying degrees offer definitions of ‘Professional Learning Networks’, but these definitions are wide ranging and, as such, make deep generalized knowledge about networks hard to pin down. As we are in the early innings of this work, the field will need to work more intentionally – and collaboratively – on understanding what the term ‘network’ means in the context of professional learning. ‘Networks’ as used within social network analysis can refer to the connections between people in one school or across many schools. Working with colleagues in one school where most people spend the majority of their professional time, albeit working with different colleagues or, most often alone, is very different from working with colleagues in different schools with diverse contexts and yet both are referred to as networks as one example. If we are to bridge the rigor to relevance gap, we need more precise language and clear tools to make this work come to life even more and allow researchers, policy makers, and practitioners speak to one another. Ensuring depth of learning as well as breadth: This book offers a diverse range of Professional Learning Network examples from several countries. Given that collaboration in the form of peer networks is now an increasingly expected feature of professionalism internationally, this is encouraging. But networking as yet isn’t the norm in most countries. The Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS) results highlight that almost half the secondary teachers who responded (45%) had never observed a colleague teach in their own school and fewer than a fifth (19%) had observed teachers in other schools, while under four in ten teachers (37%) had participated in teacher networks (OECD, 2013). Some of this may be down to structural impediments such as lack of time, or even norms to support such interactions. However, this idea of ‘deprivatizing’ practice, which opens up work to serious scrutiny, whether in sharing data, observing colleagues and crafting new practices can push people into uncomfortable territory as the level of challenge increases. Reviews of the most powerful professional learning highlight that challenging thinking is a fundamental part of changing practice. Some teacher networks rarely get beyond a shallow level of talk, either because they prefer not to push themselves out of a comfortable space, or because there is a paucity of in-depth knowledge about how their practice is intended to make a difference to students’ learning experiences, wellbeing and outcomes. The word ‘learning’ should not be taken lightly. Learning should lead to growth, but the status quo of existing beliefs, understandings and behavior is hard to ‘interrupt’. Processes like the ‘hypotheses’ and interpretation and conclusions steps in the Swedish and Dutch data team intervention, the intentional aim to change knowledge and beliefs through lesson study in the Netherlands, and the way teachers in the New Zealand chapter are guided towards clarifying their thinking and identifying taken-for-granted assumptions, are all intended to push participants into this new and frequently uncomfortable space. But within this space, we believe there is great opportunity for further work, and this harks back to our idea of putting the notion of vulnerability front and center in the change and leadership work.

Looking back and moving forward  211

We wonder to what extent teachers and leaders already have the necessary skills to facilitate the kind of Professional Learning Networking that will produce the challenge and get to this kind of depth. External researchers, who have facilitated or observed others facilitating the kinds of networking experienced by teachers, have mainly written these chapters, and although these teams may be skilled, it certainly does not imply that these skills are ubiquitous or are somehow innate to professionals. As the Dutch teacher design teams chapter demonstrates, it is development by the research team of a method to support team coaches that produces greater engagement in the second year. Going deeper also means getting better at self-evaluation as part of the professional learning experience of networks. Some examples offer traditional qualitative and quantitative evaluations. Other examples in the book included measuring the Kirkpatrick levels of effect, or in the English research learning network’s evaluations of research engagement, whether a networking initiative can enable participants to embed wider use of research-informed practices among colleagues across their schools. Inevitably, evaluating the impact at different levels when looking at specified interventions in a classroom or school is different from looking at how learning networks influence practice change and student learning experiences and outcomes. This becomes even more complex when teachers and leaders are based in different schools. There are a wide range of reasons educators become involved in networking, and these may be different from those of interest to researchers and as such we need to better unpack the interaction of these complex skills, norms, and beliefs around networks. Exploring how technology can enhance Professional Learning Networks: In today’s fast-changing world, people are increasingly turning to social media for real-time information and connection in their everyday lives. Approximately two billion people, or one third of the world’s population, are using social networks to find other people and resources across geographical, cultural and economic borders. These trends are expected to grow as mobile device usage and mobile social networks gain even more traction. It is in this growing social media space that we argue that it will become increasingly important for educators, parents, and communities to need to know how to identify, discern, and harness quality opportunities and learning that technology has the potential to unleash. In essence, we need to be more explicit about the “network literacy” skills that are developed in the youth of today. At the same time, we also need to be mindful of the network literacy of teachers, who are also continually advancing their own knowledge and that of the profession both inside and outside of schools. Technology will not be the sole driver of learning in the future, but rather it will be a valuable resource and part of a broad instructional repertoire and has the potential to bring in a wide variety of voices and perspectives. Given the relationship between networks and technology, it struck us that the area was unexplored in most chapters and provides a potential high leverage point. Limited references were offered in the examples to virtual learning, with the exception of the virtual

212  Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

professional learning communities in the Austrian case and these authors’ proposals for further digital networking. Learning in context is the norm, or with schools close by, other than occasions when larger networks come together for an organized networking event.This is not a limitation to the text, but rather the potential of virtual, digital, and social media space is an area that we need to explore and expand upon as well push for conceptual clarity. Paying attention to the conditions to support relational space: Although there is work to be done on the broad notion of ‘networks’, at the core of this work is the notion of the primacy of relationships and viewing the world from a ‘relational space perspective’, highlighted particularly in the Canadian chapters on social network and community pedagogical inquiry. For far too long, as we describe above, the education endeavor with some notable exceptions has focused on the idea of human capital – the notion that training, education, and experience are the most important bits of change and improvement in education. This has been done at the peril of a more social capital perspective in which relationships and the sets of ties between individuals are recognized as having value, even where stronger relationships between teachers are associated with greater feelings of self-efficacy, as a recent OECD study points out. In our work, as is exhibited in some of the chapters, the combination of both human and social capital holds great promise. So, in the British Columbian chapter, the educators “feel the emotions that come with belonging”.This becomes a foreground/background issue in which we foreground the social and background the human capital area. Quite simply, change and improvement is not easy – whether it involves networks or not. Teaching and leadership require commitment, energy, patience, empathy, creativity and adaptability in problem solving, and a willingness to keep learning. Faced with diverse challenges of working with children (and their parents or caregivers), the many demands of the job and being subjected to strong accountability measures in many countries, it can become increasingly hard for teachers and leaders to maintain resilience. International evidence from a range of different sectors on wellbeing at work and how to promote it identifies opportunities for learning and connectedness with colleagues as key elements of workplace wellbeing. Professional learning networks can offer this, but we need to understand more about the relationship between networked learning and teacher wellbeing.Work on the power of mindfulness as key in wellbeing, as demonstrated through studies in neuroscience, should give us pause to consider the types of networks we are crafting and supporting. So although the relationships are important, attending to the way in which we care for one another, the degree to which we can be vulnerable, and what that looks like in professional spaces reflects some of what we think are new and exciting spaces to be explored both in terms of research and practice. Although the importance of relationships are clearly central in this text, attending to the quality of those relationships also needs to be highlighted, as is evidenced in the British Columbian example. When we refer to the quality of the ties, we are

Looking back and moving forward  213

talking about levels of trust and the ability to be vulnerable.Vulnerability is one of the most overlooked and important relational capacities in improving the quality of relationships, and we would argue is the leadership skill for the 21st century (maybe a bit of an overstatement, but we want to plant a flag here). These high-quality ties are also central to ideas about wellbeing, care, and mindfulness and we can talk about the importance of networks all day long, but unless we are able to get to the core of wellbeing and the centrality of what it means to have humanity and humility, we are unlikely to get to deep change.The question becomes how do we create the conditions for wellbeing to flourish, and what does this suggest for educational systems that are reflected in this text and beyond? Generating understanding that wellbeing and intentionality requires not just a Pollyanna vision of the world, but rather relentlessly supporting people to be at their best in terms of stretching, growing, and opening perspectives. Recognizing that rather than being defined by our differences, we are actually strengthened by them and in moving to this place can do so much more. Moving towards a systems perspective – within and across: Focusing on the quantity and quality of our relationships as situated in places that privilege wellbeing and mindfulness are only as effective as the systems in which they reside. It is vital to take care when focusing on networks of individuals and groups within or between schools that their activity is well connected into and supported within the site of their major daily activities. However, for far too long we have conceptualized change and improvement from a discrete level (classroom, school, or maybe network of schools), but for deep change and wellbeing to flourish we need to focus on the system. We can see this in British Columbia’s example of “systems of relationships and negotiated meanings between ourselves, our students and our contexts”. The Austrian learn-designer network within a much larger system wide middle school reform, and in Germany where vertical networks are aimed at improving “potential gaps between kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools and universities or vocational training institutions” and a deliberate terminology of “learning regions” promotes collaboration between all educational stakeholders. The world is an interconnected and interdependent place and living into that reality catalyzes us to move in new directions.When we truly understand that when the bell tolls it tolls for thee, as John Donne noted in the 1600s, we will have made a significant step forward. Building on our strengths, connecting to a sense of purpose, embracing vulnerability, and nurturing wellbeing within and across systems hold great potential for seemingly intractable issues that many of the chapters outline.We have referred to the wellbeing of adults in Professional Learning Networks, but let us not forget why we are networking: to make a difference for children and young people. The relentless push on better results in academic assessments is leading to increased levels of anxiety in relation to preparation for tests and examinations, as highlighted in the PISA findings on student wellbeing. From our vantage point, while many of the chapters point to an idea of a systems perspective, we still have space to explore and to be more thoughtful about how the dawn of systems leadership comes about.

214  Alan J. Daly and Louise Stoll

Conclusion Given the ideas outlined within this text, why should we think that once an individual walks into a school or out in to a community that their social networks cease to be influential? If networks can influence something as personal as our health or happiness, future paths, and worldviews, surely they can also influence how we go about our work. Change happens not only in technical plans and blueprints, but through the interaction, co-construction, and sense making of individuals. As such, the interdependence of relationships across a network may ultimately moderate, influence, and even determine the direction, speed, and depth of change.Therefore, examining both the quantity and quality of social ties between and among individuals as they go about their work is important in understanding how change does or does not take place.We are social beings, and the current network approach provides us with both the insight and the vision we need to develop and improve real relationships that are often hidden in plain sight, but without expanding into the areas we have identified, we may lose the thread and relegate this important idea to yet another approach to change that did not deliver on its promise.

Note 1

Both authors contributed equally to this piece.

INDEX

accountability systems 15 activities: knowledge related 24, 49; in RLN groups 45–46, 49–50; and TDTs 24, 25 actors 175, 183–84 agency 63, 94, 96, 129, 195, 202 agile product development 27 Alice 23–24, 25, 27, 31, 33–34 alternative learning spaces 67 alternative middle-class parents 128–29 Assessments for Learning (AfL) 43, 50, 53–54 attribute variables 177 Atwell, Nancie 62–63 Australia 108 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 42 Austria 92–93 autonomy-parity patterns 101 Barth, R. S. 100 baseline data, collecting 44 BC Ministry of Education 56–57, 59, 63, 72 belonging spaces 67–68 Berg, J. H. 92 Bleckmann, P. 116 Bob 27, 30, 31–32, 33 Borgatti, S. P. 183 boundaries: crossing 15–16, 17, 65, 69–70, 73, 201–202; disciplinary 70 boundary objects 16 brainstorming 199; data teams 78; and TDTs 29, 35

British Columbia 6–7, 56–57, 212–213; collaboration in 67–68; new curriculum in 64; project partners in 59–60, 63; “Transforming University of Victoria” (TRUVic) program 63–64; UBC Okanagan hub 62;Vancouver Island University 61–62 brokers 15–16 Brown, C. 42, 46, 88–89 Burt, R. S. 183 ‘campus administration’ 127 Campus Rütli 126 “catalytic affiliation” model 58–59, 72 Center for Learning Schools 98, 100, 102, 104–106, 109 centralization 181, 182, 182, 184, 185, 190 change 201, 207; attempting to make 60, 65; documenting/sharing 73; long term 194–195; rates of 65–66; systematic 72–73 change agents 92, 195 change leadership 40, 42, 46–48, 50–51 change theories 47 Chapman, C. 11 Child and Youth Mental Health program 173–174, 174, 176, 177, 179–180, 182, 183, 186–88 cloze passages 160 Cluster Syndicate PLNs 164–165 clusters 155–57, 159, 159, 160–161 collaboration 6, 13, 143–47, 173, 198–99, 209–10; in BC 60, 62, 67–70; data teams 81, 86; educator professional learning

216  Index

57; and JPD 46; outside of PLNs 88; between schools 123 collaborative inquiry, benefits of 63 collaborative learning networks 73 communication, outside the networks/ teams 12, 16, 84, 200 communities, vs networks 4–5 communities of practice (CoP) 3, 17, 94, 152 community, sense of 68 competency-based curricula 65–66, 93 Conference on Learning Leadership 109 confidence, increases in 50–51, 143 connecting research and practice (CRP) 40 connections, between teachers 68 context: importance of 60; and the Lesson Study Plan PLN 139–40 cooperation 115; horizontal 118; vertical 117–18 coordination/reflection 16 curriculum: criteria for 73; for Lerndesigners 102–103 curriculum-focused learning 53 curriculum transformation 65–67 data-based decision making 75–76, 153 ‘data capture’ mats 45 data characteristics 81 data collection/analysis 79, 86, 153, 158, 161–63 data literacy 81 data teams 7, 201, 210; context characteristics 82–83; defining 75–77; influences on 80–82; interventions 77, 78, 86; processes 78–80, 86 Deal, T. 178–79 deep structures 93 degree centrality 184, 185, 187, 191n5 demographic change 120–121 Den Brok, P. 139 density 178–179, 179–80, 191n2 Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 108 Desimone, L. M. 196 dialogic approaches of PLNs 69 Diamond, J. B. 88 Diendorfer, Helga 105 digital tools in chemistry education theme 24, 25 directed ties 176 discussion activities 49–50 diversity 115; in Austria 93–94; of educators 67–69; in schools 58, 128–129 ‘double helix’ cycle of inquiry 44, 45

Dudley, P. 149 Durdel, A. 116 Duveneck, A. 117–118, 118, 125, 128 education: 20th-century models 57; importance of 119 educational justice 128–129 educational landscapes 7–8, 115–117, 121–122, 130, See also local educational landscapes educational materials, designing 21, 33, 61, 142 educators, learning 11–12, 21, 60–61, 135–136 eduMoodle platform 92, 102 engagement, importance of 44 England’s Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) 39, 54n1 evaluation levels, and TDTs 21 ‘Excellence Together’ Teaching School Alliance 38, 42–43 experiences, sharing 83–84 expressive ties 175 extended concept of education 119–120 extended schools 121–122 face-to-face engagement 16 facilitated processes of learning 39, 50 feedback 189–90; formats for 62–63 feeding forward 98 financial austerity 128–129 Flybjerg, B. 41 focus 6, 12–13, 197–198 formal schooling 7, 97, 102, 119, 121, 126–27 forums 105; closed 102 Fred 23–24, 25, 26–27 frustration 42, 196 Fullan, M. 42 Furuness, S. 58 “Future of Education – School of the Future” report 121 generations, of Austrian teachers 94, 95, 102, 103 geographical boundaries 3–4 Germany 115–116, 118, 122, 125 goals: and data teams 78, 85; of the Lesson Study PLN 140, 142, 146; Ministry of School and Further Education 124; of PLNs 12, 194, 197–198; school-level 12 Grace 27, 31, 32–33 group learning 14



growth mindset 43–44, 49, 51–54 guidance, for Teacher Design Teams 6 Hadfield, M. 105 Halverson, R. 88 Hannon,V. 109 Hargreaves, B. L. 109 Harris, A. 89 Harvey, David 128 hierarchies: in Austrian teaching 101; networks 177, 187, 190 hierarchies of knowing 58 Hofbauer, Christoph 98–100 Hord, S. M. 106 horizontal cooperation 118, 118, 123, 125, 126–27, 130 Hubers, M.D. 16, 196 human capital 207–08 hybrid leadership 35 identification 16 improvement measures, implementing 80 indegree centrality 184, 185 Indigenous learning principles 64, 66 indigenous students 8, 152, 155–156 individual learning 14 individualized learning 4 inequality 93, 126 informal learning 7, 72, 115–116, 118, 126–129 informality 33 information flows 177–78, 190, 201 innovation 107–10; in Austrian schools 93–94 Innovation models 108 inquiry-based teaching 66 Inquiry Learning Spaces (ILSs) 24, 25 instrumental ties 175 intellectual stimulation 200 inter-school clusters 158–159, 161 interdependence 205, 213 interdependent partnerships 89 international policy demands 10 ‘International Student Assessment Program’ (PISA) 118–119, 213 interurban competition 128–129 interventions 153, 156, 169 interviews 157; British Columbia 60–63, 67– 68; data teams 84–85; Germany 123, 125, 127–128; Research Learning Networks 48, 50–53; on sustainability 156–157, 200; for the TDT 23–24, 26–28, 30, 32–33 intra-school learning communities 50, 156–157, 168–69

Index 217

intra-school PLNs 158–59, 160–61, 163, 168 investigation 138 isolates 175–76 isolation, PLNs countering 69–70 Jane 23–24, 25, 33 John 23, 27, 32–33 joint practice development (JPD) 46 Jones, M. 89 key conditions 12, 194, 202, See also collaboration; focus; group learning; individual learning; leadership; reflective professional inquiry King, Martin Luther 205 Knocke, D. 183 knowledge-based societies 119, 128, 206 knowledge ‘creation’ 40, 49, 208 knowledge mobilization 180, 183, 185–187 knowledge related activities 24 knowledge sharing 16, 23, 25, 26, 72, 82, 86, 89–90, 162–163, 163–64, 165, 165, 168, 201–02 Kuiper, W. 75–76 ladder of research use 47–48, 49 Lai, M. K. 87, 89, 156 lead teachers 156, 158–59, 162 Leaders’ Learning Network 161 leadership 13, 109, 154, 158–59, 162, 167, 199–201, 206; behavior around 22; distributed 82, 88–89; learning centered 5; teachers 97–101; top-down 20, 26, 32, 34–35, 92, 94, 97–98, 128; transformational 5, 199–200 leadership practices 41 leading change. See change leadership learning 15, 66, 136–37, 206, 210–212; alternative opportunities for 4, 67; Indigenous principles of 64, 66; individualized 4; informal 72, 116; reciprocity of 71; via PLNs 67 learning activities 40 learning ateliers 95–96, 102 learning centered leadership 5 learning conversation exercises 45 ‘learning conversations’ 40 learning experiences, and students 57 learning principles 16 learning processes 53, 66 learning regions 120–121 learning systems, and complexity 58, 60 learning values 52–53 Lebenswelt Schule 122–123

218  Index

Lerndesigner network 7, 92, 96, 98, 101, 103, 104, 107, 110–11, See also virtual PLNs Lerndesigners 95–96, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104 Lernen vor Ort 125 Lesson Study PLNs 137, 148–49, 210; effects of 142–43; feasibility of 143– 144; implementing 147–148; in the Netherlands 135, 137, 138–140; support for 145–146; teachers on 142–145 Lesson Study teams 141–142, 144–145, 148 Lewis, C. 138, 146 liminal spaces 59, 66 local educational landscapes 116–120, 122, 126 Lortie, D. C. 101 Lysaker, J. 58 management 145–46 Mary 23, 27, 31, 32, 34 Matt 23–24, 25, 26–27 meetings 198–99; 3 campus 65–67, 72; and collaboration 65; Lerndesigners 97; Lesson Study PLN 139–140, 145, 147–148; and mentorship 61; New Zealand 157, 161; TDT example 22–23, 25, 31–32; UBC Okanagan 62; UVIC hub 63; virtual 104 membership: of communities 4; CYMH network 173–174; and focus 197–198; of networks 4; New Zealand’s PLNs 160–162, 167; selecting 198 Mental Health Leads (MHL) 174, 176, 179–180, 185, 186, 187, 189–190 mentoring/coaching 41, 86, 89, 185, 186, 190; lateral 72; pre-service teachers 61 Michael 23 Middle School Integrated Methods 62 Ministry of Education Schooling Improvement Clusters 155, 161 Ministry of School and Further Education 124 Ministry’s Center for Learning Schools 98–99 minorities 155–156 mismatches 14–15, 17 mistakes, and learning 52–53 modeling 41 monitoring 41 mortar 206 Muijs, D. 94 National College for Teaching and School Leadership 42 Netherlands: data teams 22, 80, 82–83; Lesson Study PLN 135, 140, 146, 210

network literacy 211 network theories 174, 178–180, 189 networks 115, 117–118, 118, 122–124, 126, 189, 210; analysis of 178; building 209; centralization 181, 182, 182, 191n3; and change 207–208; cohesion 178–179, 181–183, 186–187; defining 172; egocentrism 183; fluidity of 110–111; and knowledge sharing 180–81; maps 175, 176, 177–178, 179–180, 186–188; sociology of 173, 175; sustainability 187; vs communities 4–5, 117 Neukölln, schools in 128 ‘New Middle School’ 92–93, 95, 101–03, 107, See also Lerndesigner network New Zealand 155–157, 160, 163–164, 169, 210 NMS-eLearning 101–102 NMS-Entwicklungsbegleitung (NMS-EB) 94, 98, 107 Nonaka, I. 41 novice educators 71 objectives, for TDTs 21 O’Hair, John 110 ‘Online Learning Atelier for all Lerndesigners’ (OLLD) 103, 105 Ontario Ministry of Education 174 opinion formers 41, 43, 51 opportunity costs 154 organizational learning 14 outcomes: data team interventions 83–84; improving 39 outdegree centrality 184 ownership 21–22, 26, 33–34, 142, 145 Paula 23 Peck, J. 129 pedagogic contact zones 63 personalized professional development 106 perspectives, sharing 69–70 Pete 23–24, 25 Peurach, D. J. 167 PISA-shock 118–119, 121 planning 138 Polianyi, M. 92 policies 200–201; New Zealand 169; potential issues with 14–15, 17, 195–196 Poortman, C. L. 88–89 practitioner-led innovation 109–110 pre-service teachers 61–63 Prell, C. 178 prestige 184, 189 primary school assessment practices 93 problem definition 78



process steps, for TDTs 23 professional capital 208 professional development activities 12, 51; implementation 138–39; and TDTs 21 professional development practices 135 professional development programs 136; in Austria 94; compared with TDTs 30; on data-use 76; PLNs as 152 professional learning 106 Professional Learning Communities 104, 106–107, 153–56, 166–168 Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) 10–11, 17, 117, 153–54, 158–159; benefits of 196; communication outside 84, 200; compared with educational landscapes 116–17, 130; defined 1–2, 3, 11, 168; Dutch research project studying 139–40, 147; and goals 12–13, 194, 197; intra-school 155, 157, 158, 160–61, 163; and isolation 69–70; opportunities created by 72; opportunity costs 154; regional 56; and relationships 58–59, 71, 89; structuring 88–89, 140–141, 157, 158–59, 160–161, 163–164, 165, 167– 68; successful 5, 16–17, 89, 155; virtual 104, See also data teams; Lerndesigner network; Lesson Study PLNs; Research Learning Networks (RLNs); teacher design teams (TDTs) project leaders, importance of 123 project-traps 123 qualification programs 42, 92, 97, 102 questioning skills 52 questions: in Austria 102; CYMH study 174; general 2; for knowledge sharing 201–202; Lesson Study PLN 147; Swedish data teams 83 reciprocal learning relationships 62 reciprocal ties 177 reflection 138 reflective professional inquiry 6, 13, 88, 148, 199 regional nested learning hubs 60 regional PLNs 56 Regionale Bildungsnetzwerke NRW 123–124 relational interactions 58–59, 212 relationships: building between teachers 70–71; importance of 172–173, 198, 208–209, 212; and shared leadership 100 research-informed practices 41, 49–51 Research-Informed Teaching Practices (RITP) 38–41, 50–51 research knowledge 45–46

Index 219

Research Learning Networks (RLNs) 6; activities 45–46, 49–50; change leadership 40; and JPD 46; learning processes 39, 53–54; and opinion formers 41, 43, 51; origins 38–39; researchinformed practices 41; responses to 49–50; surveys on 47–48, 49; and the TSA 43, See also Professional Learning Networks (PLNs) research lesson 85, 146 Robinson,V. M. J. 167 role-making/taking 96–98, 98 Salas, E. 139 Scharmer, Claus Otto 93–95, 97–98, 109 Schildkamp, K. 75–76, 87, 89 Schmied, Claudia 93–94 school: compared with youth work 120; evolution of 121 school autonomy 93 school improvements 18, 32, 35, 51, 54, 76, 84–85, 87, 115, 130, 155–56, 166, 194–95; framing 11 school leaders 41 school-level goals 12 school organization 81–82, 110, 195 school reforms 92–93, 95, 95, 121–22 schooling improvement clusters 155–56 schools, mental health policies for 173–74 schools and clusters 163–64 Schratz, M. 100 self-evaluation 123, 211 self-organized learning 59 senior leadership 42, 50–51, 160; role of 51 Senior Management Teams (SMT) 158–159 shared leadership 22, 27, 32, 35, 100 social capital 207–208 social media 211 Social Network Analysis 190–91; importance of 172–173 social network maps 176, 177, 179–180 social network perspective 179 social network statistics 176–177 social network theory 174–190, 207 social networks 206, 214 social ties 206 sociograms 175 Spillane, J. P. 88, 109 spontaneous discussions 24, 34 stakeholders 4–5, 7, 57–58, 72, 92, 95–96, 123, 125 star graphs 181 steering committees: in BC 59–60; in Germany 124, 127 Stepanek, J. 141, 149

220  Index

stepwise method 27, 28, 29–30, 32–35 stewardship 107, 109 Stoll, L. 42, 46, 87, 195 student achievements 76, 153, 156, 166–167 student-based orientation 135 student engagement 60, 66 student learning 142–43; improvements in 12, 51–52, 156 students, educational possibilities of 119 success, feelings of 26 surveys 43, 47–48, 49, 98–99 sustainability 152–53, 156, 166, 169 sustained school improvement 194–196, 202 Sweden 75, 78–82, 84–85 System 4.0 93 system transformation 94–95 system-wide innovation 110 tacit knowledge 4, 45, 49 Takeuchi, H. 41 teacher collaboration 2 Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) 6; activities 25, 30, 31–32; defining 20–21; outcomes 26, 32–34; process steps 23, 27, 28, 29–30; stepwise method 27, 30, 32–35; structure 22–23, 27 teacher educators 142, 145–146 teacher leadership dimensions 92 teacher learning 135–137, 146, 198 teachers 195; educating 60–62; expectations of 6, 136; goals 12–13; leadership 97–101; learning 136; practitioner-based knowledge 40 teaching, as knowledge generating 95 Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS) 210 teaching practices 51–52, 63, 138, 142 Teaching School Alliance (TSA) 43 Teaching Schools 42 team coaches, and TDTs 22–23, 25, 26–27, 31, 32 team goals 28, 29–30, 34; lack of 23–24

team work 139 technology 211 tensions 58, 63, 101, 108–109 'Theory U’ framework 95, 109 Three Campus Communities of Pedagogical Inquiry Project 56, 65–67, 72 Thurlings, M. 139 ties 175–77, 186, 187, 191n4, 212–213 top-down leadership 20, 26, 32, 34–35, 92, 94, 97–98, 128 transformation 16, 109 transformational leadership 5, 199–200 transformative change, in education 57 transformative teaching 48 “Transforming University of Victoria” (TRUVic) program 63–64 Triple Diamond Model of the Department of Innovation 108 trust 208–09; cultures of 51, 145 “12th child and youth report” 116, 119 21st century demands 10–11 UBC Okanagan hub 62–63 undirected ties 176 University of Victoria hub 63–64 Vancouver Island University 61–62 vertical cooperation 117–18, 118, 125, 126–129 Veugelers, W. 110 virtual PLNs 104–06, See also Lerndesigner network virtual Professional Learning Networks 7 vulnerability 212–213; need for 64–65 Waldenfels, Bernhard 110 Westfall-Greiter, Tanja 98–100 workshops 44, 45 youth work 120–121, 127–128 Zoellick, W. 92