How do teachers experience participating in a large-scale school development project in Norway? In 2022–2023, 75 schools in the Metropolitan Network were given the opportunity to participate in local competence development through Decentralised Competence Development (Dekom). In Norway, this scheme was introduced in White Paper 21 (2016–2017). The scheme was intended to meet local competence needs and initiatives, i.e. competence development based on local anchoring (Dehlin & Irgens, 2017; Mausethagen & Helstad, 2023). Achieving local anchoring with so many schools and teachers involved presented organisational challenges. In the Metropolian Network, we developed a model to rig the school development initiative in an optimal and manageable way. The model was called the Resource group model. 

In the Resource group model, each participating school establishes a resource group made up of teachers with a special interest in the focus area, and with at least one member of the school management. The groups are local drivers of the development work at the individual schools (cf. Spillane, 2006) and act as a link between the schools and the university employees. A key element of the model is that participation takes place over time. The aim of the first semester, with common content for all schools, is to empower the resource groups to lead competence development at their own school (cf. Spillane, 2006). The second to fourth semesters are devoted to theme-specific gatherings for the competence packages. The model expects that all teachers at the individual school do self-study between each gathering. The resource group members shared experiences from this work at the next gatherings. In this way, the model was rigged for co-created learning processes (Klev & Levin, 2009). Previous studies have shown that giving teachers enough time to work on development work is a critical factor for the success of professional development, and this can often be a challenge (e.g. Dehlin & Irgens, 2018; Timperley et al., 2007).

All stakeholders working in or close to schools agree that school development is a key part of the school's work, but disagree about which instruments are best suited to achieving this (Mausethagen & Helstad, 2023). While previous competence development schemes in Norway have been based on a learning model where there was to be a form of ‘competence transfer’ from knowledge providers (universities) to knowledge recipients (teachers), the new model was to be based to a greater extent on co-creation in established partnerships between schools and universities (Meld. St. 21 (2016-17)). School-based competence development is to take place in schools, where both teachers and leaders develop knowledge about teaching and learning in the local school context (Postholm, 2018). An important aspect of this rethinking of school development was to meet the needs of those closest to the pupils in the classroom.

This study builds on a previous evaluation of the first schools in the Metropolitan Network that used the Resource group model (2020–2022, Kvithyld et al., 2024). The earlier study explored the experiences of university partners (UH employees) and resource group members with the program. In the 2022–2023 school year, the second phase focused on gathering feedback from teachers at the participating schools. This study highlights teachers' perspectives, aiming to provide more detailed and useful insights for improving the Metropolitan Network and similar school development initiatives. The study has the following two-part research question:

What experiences do teachers have of participating in a large-scale school development project, and how can these experiences be used in the further development of partnership models?

We have collected quantitative and qualitative data through a survey with a mix of closed items and free text responses. All teachers who have participated in the project were given the opportunity to participate in the survey (N=147). The sample includes schools of different sizes and geographical spread within the network's area, and all six competence packages in the Metropolitan Network are represented: Language and technology, Public health and life empowerment, Creative activity in the classroom, Programming, Practical and aesthetic approaches to learning and L2 pedagogy. The survey was distributed via the school principal at the schools. Teachers were sent a link to the questionnaire by email. The survey was designed in the tool ‘Nettskjema’, which is a Norwegian digital solution for data collection approved in accordance with GDPR, and the answers were anonymous. There were 16 items where the participants had to decide on statements by ticking a 5-point Likert scale from ‘to a very small extent’ to ‘to a very large extent’. The data from the surveys were used for univariate, descriptive analyses (Cohen et al., 2018). The analysis of the qualitative data material was conducted as a thematic analysis (Johannesen et al., 2018). The teachers were asked about topics such as the perceived relevance of the competence package, anchoring in perceived needs (both at school and individual level), the possibility of influence before and during the initiative, student involvement, time spent and perceived benefit of the initiative.

Preliminary analyses show that teachers generally felt that the competence package they were involved in was anchored in the school's needs, but that they themselves had not been involved in determining the focus of the development work. In the qualitative material, several teachers have explained that the school as a whole has a different development need than they themselves as individual teachers. In the presentation, we will discuss this gap and how it can inform future rigging of partnerships. While teachers felt somewhat involved in shaping the program, they felt less involved as it progressed. At the same time, it is unclear to what extent this has been perceived as a problem, which we will discuss in the presentation. The teachers reported that the students had even less opportunity to influence the content of the competence package during the development work, and we have identified a need to collect data at student level in our further studies. The analyses show that the teachers were generally positive about the initiative and that the content of the competence package has been relevant to their teaching and day-to-day practice. The teachers feel that they have further developed their teaching practices and/or that they have received confirmation that their existing teaching practices are in line with recent didactic research. A somewhat surprising finding is that the teachers are mainly satisfied with the time they had available to carry out the PD at their own school. In the presentation, we will discuss how the design of the resource group model and the work at the individual schools took place, in order to be able to say something about what succeeded and did not succeed in the initiative, and how these findings can be used in the planning of similar large-scale development projects.

Dehlin, E. & Irgens, E. J. (2017). Kunnskap som struktur i møte med kunnskap som praksis. Dilemma og spenninger i norsk skoleutvikling. I M. B. Postholm (Red.), Kunnskap for en bedre skole. Etter- og videreutdanning som strategi (s. 161–188). Fagbokforlaget. Dehlin, E. & Irgens, E. J. (2018). Case C. I M. B. Postholm, A. Normann, T. Dahl, E. Dehlin, G. Engvik & E. J. Irgens (Red.), Skole og utdanningssektoren i utvikling (s. 225–271). Fagbokforlaget. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8.utg). Routledge. Grønmo, S. (2016). Samfunnsvitenskapelige metoder (2. utg.). Fagbokforlaget. Johannessen, L., Rafoss, T. W. & Rasmussen, E. B. (2018). Hvordan bruke teori? Nyttige verktøy i kvalitativ analyse. Universitetsforlaget. Klev, R. & Levin, M. (2009). Forandring som praksis. Fagbokforlaget. Kvithyld, T., Morud, E. B. & Kvistad, A. H. (2024). Lokal forankring i storskala skoleutviklingsprosjekter – en evaluering av en modell for skolebasert kompetanseutvikling der mange skoler deltar. Nordisk tidsskrift for utdanning og praksis, 18(3), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.23865/up.v18.6371 Mausethagen, S. & Helstad, K. (2023). Skoleutvikling – i forskning, politikk og praksis. I K. Helstad & S. Mausethagen (Red.), Skoleutvikling i forskning, politikk og praksis (s. 15–34). Cappelen Damm akademisk. Meld. St. 21 (2016-2017). Lærelyst – tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-21-20162017/id2544344/ Postholm, M. B. (2018). Case A. I M. B. Postholm, A. Normann, T. Dahl, E. Dehlin, G. Engvik & E. J, Irgens (Red.), Skole- og utdanningssektoren i utvikling (s. 99–162). Fagbokforlaget. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey¬ Bass. Starkey, L., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., Hall, C., Taylor, M., Stevens, S. & Toia, R. (2009). Professional development design: Embedding educational reform in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.007 Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: divergence, depth and dilemmas. Open University Press. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). New Zealand Ministry of Education.