Networks to support innovative pedagogy are traditionally organised by bringing together teachers from subject disciplines or from specific phases of education.  These networks are strengthened by the similarities of context and the common language that participants share.  However, they may also be weakened by the inability of participants to access broader perspectives or to recognise the role of accustomed and unexamined practice in limiting their pedagogic options.  The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that broker these networks may also find that they are replicating their inputs across a range of audiences and that retaining innovative teachers in these networks may be problematic (Black-Hawkins, 2004; McLaughlin and Black- Hawkins, 2004)

Co-constructed understandings of pedagogy and what effective learning looks like have emerged from three research projects run by Research Centre for Learning and Teaching. These projects are all based around practitioner enquiry methodologies (Baumfield et al. 2009) and involve teachers from primary schools (age 3-11); secondary schools (11-18); further education colleges (14+) and university (18+).  These projects rest upon an approach to research and knowledge construction which has been developed over the last 20 years by members of the research centre.  This is a model which emphasises partnership, trust and complementary roles in research undertaken collaboratively by HE researchers, local authorities, schools and colleges and thus it represents part of a developing trajectory of a dispersed research-informed practice community (Lieberman and Grolnick, 1996).

Cordingley et al (2002) point to the value of studying learning across boundaries when researching how educational networks operate and evolve. Central to our understanding of how definitions and agendas for Learning to Learn emerge and evolve is the extent to which learning takes place across professional as well as organisational boundaries (Hall, 2009). Of particular importance to us is gaining an understanding as to the nature of boundary spanning relationships within the network- as Little (2005) puts it, knowing ‘What’s in the arrow’ that links nodes together. Specifically, we are interested in the propensity of Learning to Learn agendas to cut across primary, secondary and further education contexts, as well as the ability of teachers to recognise the research implications as well as the pedagogic potential presented in the case studies of colleagues. At the heart of this problem is the means by which practitioner enquiry, supported by the university, moves from being that of personal interest, to one that is acknowledged and owned by the community. We used McLaughlin and Black-Hawkins (2004) six models for school-university partnership as a frame to analyse how this occurs.

The key questions addressed in this paper are:

Can the networks of influence between practitioner enquirers be predicted by their professional context, age of learners or subject discipline?

What other kinds of factors (enquiry methodology, pedagogical intent, teaching strategy, national policy) mediate influence in a heterogeneous network?

If the complexity of a heterogeneous network is unpredictable, is this a potentially chaotic or creative situation?

Baumfield, V., Hall, E. and Wall, K. (2008) Action Research in the Classroom. London: Sage Black- Hawkins, K. 2004. Developing and sustaining school-based practitioner research, enquiry and evidence within networks. In. McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K & McIntyre, D., eds. Researching Teachers, Researching Schools, Researching Networks: A Review of the Literature. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 44-79. Carmichael, P., Fox, A., McCormick, R., Procter, R. & Honour, L., 2006. Teachers’ networks in and out of school. Research Papers in Education. 21(2)2, 217–234. Cordingley, P. & Bell, M. 2002.School based research consortium initiative: an overview report. Conference paper. TTA conference: working and learning in partnership, March 2002. London. Fox, A., McCormick, R., Procter, R & Carmichael, P., 2007. The design and use of a mapping tool as a baseline means of identifying an organization’s active networks. International Journal of Research & Method in Education,30 (2), 127–147 Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E., 2004. Communities of networked expertise: professional and educational perspectives. London: Elsevier. Hall, E. (2009) Engaging in and engaging with research: teacher enquiry and development Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 15, 6 Heldal, F. (2010) Multidisciplinary collaboration as a loosely coupled system: integrating and blocking professional boundaries with objects Journal of Interprofessional Care 24, 1 pp19-30 Leiberman, A. and Grolnick,M. 1996. Networks and reform in American education, Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7–45. Little, J. 2005. Nodes and Nets: Investigating Resources for Professional Learning in Schools and Networks. Nottingham: NCSL McLaughlin, C. & Black- Hawkins, K. 2004. A schools university research partnership: understandings, models and complexities. Journal of In-service Education, 30 (2), 265-283.