May Britt Postholm

May.britt.postholm@ntnu.no

Department of Teacher Education, NTNU

The professional development of teachers plays a crucial role in improving teachers teaching together with the pupils (Loughran, 2014). This article is based on a one -year developmental work research project (DWR) focusing on school development and the development of teachers’ professional digital competence in one primary school with nine teachers and two leaders: one principal and one middle leader, and all the nine teachers and leaders took part in the development processes. A research group consisting of eight teacher educators with different and complementary competencies collaborated with the school. The problem formulation for the study presented in the article was the following: How do teachers experience participation in a developmental work research project designed by researchers within the frame of CHAT? The intention with the study is to describe how development work is organized and how faculty trust is aimed for because this is scarcely described in the literature. We researchers acted as resource persons both in terms of learning processes for teachers and leaders, as well as subject content. The project was framed by cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), meaning that the school was treated as a social system or an organization (Engeström, 2015).

There is little consensus on how teacher professional development should be arranged for (Kennedy, 2016). According to Wolthuis et al. (2020) collective lesson experimentation and observation require complex organizational work in schools. Stoll and Louis (2007) have identified organizational conditions, such as time for collaboration, and social aspects, such as a trustful atmosphere, as essential requirements for the learning of all professionals in schools. Liu et al. (2016) has found that learning-centred leadership strongly empowers organizational trust among teachers. Research findings have also shown that teachers’ participation in professional learning communities (PLC) resulted in both increased disciplinary and pedagogical content knowledge (Dogan et al., 2015). In PLC teachers work together to improve teaching, and research has also emphasized the importance of school leadership for learning in PLCs by creating desirable school organizational conditions (Stoll et al., 2006). However, Little (1990) stated that interaction between teachers is not the same as meaningful collaboration. From a learning perspective experimenting with new teaching practice is more promising for teachers than just sharing experiences (Kvam, 2018). Lesson experimentation, and observation and reflection often represent new ways of working and learning together, and schools can benefit from external support in such processes. However, dependence on input from facilitators can also impede teachers and leaders to develop intercollegiate collaborative talk about teaching (Horn & Kane, 2015).

In the start-up phase of the project the teachers and leaders developed an object to act on and also development questions framed by this object. Throughout the year, four observations followed by joint analyses, referred to as meeting points, were conducted. The problem statements for the specific lessons observed, were also formulated with the development questions as a frame. The first joint analyses were led by a researcher to model how to lead the dialogue, and the three next analyses sessions were led by the principal with the intention to develop leadership capabilities to promote sustainability (Nelson & Slavit). The school leader and at least two teachers participated in this process alongside two to four researchers. 

The purpose of this study was to illuminate how DWR with observation and joint analyses can be organized and led, and to understand how these arrangements and leadership processes are perceived by the teachers involved.

The researchers’ planning documents became essential for describing the processes over the year. However, this material represented an understanding developed from the researchers’ perspective. The analyses were intensified when collecting material in a qualitative interview study (Kvale & Brinkman, 2015) at the end of the school year to gain a deeper understanding of the emic perspective (Wolcott, 2008) and thus the teachers’ experiences participating in the developmental work. In the semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkman 2015, Postholm, 2019) the following questions guided the dialogues with the teachers: 1. How would you describe this year with the project? 2. What factors do you believe have contributed to your sense of ownership (or lack thereof) in the project? 3. How would you describe the process of developing the research question (5-7, 1-4)? 4. What way do you feel that the work is based on the development needs you have in teaching? 5. How have the staff at the school worked on the project throughout the school year? 6. What impact has the development work had on the professional learning community at the school? 7. What impact do you feel the development work has had on your own teaching, and what have you learned and taken with you? 8. If we return to the school in half a year, would we recognize the work then?” The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim afterwards. The constant comparative method of analyses and open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was used to analyse the interviews. On the right hand side of the transcriptions of the interview codes such as the following were written during the open coding phase: “difficult development question”, “revising it”, “developed ownership”, “ more focused”, “stick to the case”, “more in depth”, thinking more of why”, meta-gaze on own teaching”, dare to ask critical questions”, structure important”, everyone has a voice” easier to assess our goals”, conducting research”. Text blocks that had got labels related to each other were gathered under more abstract headings condensing the data material into main categories. The main categories that were developed from the data material with the help of the open coding process became: From “Chaos to direction and focus”, “Important to focus the observations”, “The importance of a structured approach during joint analysis sessions”, and “Experiences and learning from the structured development work”.

The purpose of this study was to illuminate how DWR can be organized and led, and to understand how these arrangements and leadership processes are perceived by the teachers involved. The study does not confirm that the structure for lesson planning and joint analysis has become part of the school’s practice; it is not ingrained or imbedded in the walls, but at least the structure is posted on the wall, and the staff at the school have practiced it and they want to continue. This could indicate that these processes will hopefully become part of the everyday practice in the school in the future. The principal at the school was not just supporting the processes but was actively involved in them. The leader was guiding the joint analyses, thereby developing the leadership capabilities of the leader in their collaborative analyses, which, according to Nelson and Slavit (2008), can lead to a sustainable practice. The teachers also expressed their desire to continue with observation and joint analyses but noted that the principal must facilitate such practices. The principal at this school has the prerequisites to both create conditions for learning and support the learning processes. It could be interesting to return to this school after a year to find out if the practice has continued, and if so, how, and if not, why. It could also be interesting to find out if joint analyses become redundant when teachers trust each other and have developed a collaborative culture that recognizes the qualities in everyone, giving everyone a voice. This study includes just one school, and the findings are not generalizable to other contexts in a traditional way, but the structured processes could be adapted and transferred to similar school contexts through the reader conducting naturalistic generalization (Stake & Trumbull, 1982).

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research.: Sage Publications, Inc. Dogan, S., Pringle, R., & Mesa, J. (2015). The impacts of professional learning communities on science teachers’ knowledge, practice and student learning: A review. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1065899 Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800 Horn, I. S., & Kane, B. D. (2015). Opportunities for professional learning in mathematics teacher workgroup conversations: Relationships to instructional expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 373–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1034865 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju (3rd ed.). Gyldendal Norsk Forlag. Kvam, E. K. (2018). Untapped learning potential? A study of teachers’ conversations with colleagues in primary schools in Norway. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1418833 Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536. Liu, S., Hallinger, P., & Feng, D. (2016). Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does principal leadership make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 79-91. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533386 Nelson, T., & Slavit, D. (2008). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99-116. Postholm, M. B. (2019). Research and Development in School: Grounded in Cultural Historical Activity Theory. Brill Academic Publishers. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. (1982). Naturalistic generalization. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1), 1-12. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1-13). Open University 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, 221-258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc. Wolcott, H. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). AltaMira Press. Wolthuis, F., van Veen, K., de Vries, S., & Hubers, M. D. (2020). Between lethal and local adaptation: Lesson study as an organizational routine. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101534