Collective participation – where teachers participate in professional development (PD) initiatives together with their colleagues – is often emphasized as a core critical feature of high-quality PD (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). However, empirical results regarding this core critical feature are mixed. For example, three recently published meta-analyses show that teacher collaboration has either a positive (Lynch et al., 2019), negative  (Kowalski et al., 2020) or no (Kahmann et al., 2022) impact on the effect of teacher PD. Moreover, several studies of PD programs, including collective participation, have shown that teachers in collegial conversations rarely enter critical discussions about their own teaching (e.g., Kaufmann & Ryve, 2022). There may be several reasons for this. One is possibly due to the "school culture of nice," where teachers avoid challenging each other or their practices (Mcdonald, 2011). Another factor is the lack of a shared framework for defining and discussing high-quality teaching (Ball, 1999), which hampers meaningful comparisons between teaching practices. In other words, teacher collaboration per se does not seem to be a core critical feature of effective PD. However, what teachers collaborate on, in what way, and how this collaboration could be supported, is important to investigate further (Brown & Herbst, 2023).

In this study, we frame teacher collaboration in the concept of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), which we define broadly as a group of teachers who meet regularly, over an extended period, and with a focus on student learning locally (Fulton et al., 2010). The PLC concept is connected to Communities of Practice (CoP) theory (Wenger, 1999). When teachers collaborate within authentic work and contexts, they draw on the collective knowledge, experiences, and resources of the group to support growth. This view of learning positions PLCs as a promising avenue for teacher development.

Scholars have investigated what makes PLCs effective. To begin with, based on the results from a review on teacher collaboration, it has been argued that PLCs should foster both strong interpersonal ties and constructive controversy, creating space for differing opinions and beliefs to emerge, thereby enriching authentic professional learning (Kelchtermans, 2006). Moreover, PLCs should be centred around records of practice (e.g. videos, student work and observation notes; Ball & Cohen, 1999). However, simply centring records of practice is not enough to ensure productive PLCs. For example, Horn and Little (2010) found patterned differences in how groups – who all used records of practice, engaged in conversations, influencing their productivity. Specifically, different groups varied in how they responded to teachers’ accounts of classroom events—either steering the discussion toward or away from teaching. This highlights the challenge of maintaining a collaborative focus on instructional practice, even when using records of practice.

The aim of this study is to explore how a collaborative PD program implemented in a Swedish school impacts teacher collaboration at one school. Our case is Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR), a high impact PD program thoroughly tested in Australia (e.g., Gore et al., 2021). In QTR, teachers, in groups of four, use observations of each other’s lessons as records of practice, creating opportunities to analyse and reflect on authentic teaching contexts. After each observation, teachers engage in a discussion of the observed lesson with the support of a framework for quality teaching – the Quality Teaching Model (QTM). This framework provides the called for (Ball et al., 1999) shared language for the teachers to define and discuss high quality teaching. 

In exploring the effects of QTR in a Swedish school we will use three data sources, all with pre and post data available. In particular, we focus on the development of interpersonal ties and constructive controversy (Kelchterman, 2006). To begin with, to investigate the development of interpersonal ties, we draw on advice-network data to perform social network analysis (SNA) and capture shifts in network structure and dynamics. Data for SNA were collected through a survey designed to capture advice-seeking relationships within the group. Respondents (NPre=13, NPost=12) were asked to identify colleagues from whom they seek advice. The network structure was then analysed for network level density and centralization. Network-level density is a measure of how connected a network is. For valued networks, such as this one, it’s the average tie strength (scale 0-4) in the adjacency matrix. Network-level centralization indicates how much a single node, or a group of nodes, dominates the network. In a highly centralized network, one node (or group of nodes) connects the others, resembling a star structure. Centralization measures how closely a network approximates this star-like pattern. A network with strong interpersonal ties is characterized by high density and low centrality. Secondly, to investigate the development of constructive controversy, we use additional pre and post survey items regarding teachers’ professional collaboration (N=10). The items were: To what extent (scale 1-4) do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (a) Most teachers at this school unit provide each other with practical support for the implementation of new ideas, (b) Many teachers openly express professional opinions during meetings, (c) Teachers are willing to challenge each other’s opinions. Finally, to get further insights into the development of constructive controversy, we conduct a qualitative analysis of the collegial discussions of one PLC (N = 4 teachers) in the beginning (2h 4min) and the end (1h 14min) of QTR participation. In a first preliminary analysis of the data, we focus on different interaction types. Specifically, five dimensions of sharing - participants share experiences, knowledge, or strategies without seeking input, questioning - participants ask clarifying or probing questions to others, challenging - participants critique or push back on ideas presented by others, building on ideas - participants expand on or elaborate others’ contributions, and facilitation moves - contributions from facilitators guiding discussions or encouraging participation were the focus of analysis.

In this section, we present preliminary findings regarding the PLC’s development of interpersonal ties and constructive controversy. Interpersonal ties: The average tie strength in the advice network increased from 0.740 pre-QTR to 0.802 post-QTR, indicating a slight increase in network density (+0.062). This suggests that the network has become more cohesive, allowing for an easier and faster information flow among teachers. The centralization of the network, measured by indegree advice giving, decreased from 0.394 pre-QTR to 0.365 post-QTR (-0.029). This decrease indicates a reduced reliance on a central person or group, promoting a more democratic distribution of advice and knowledge. Constructive controversy: The survey results showed an increase in practical support for new ideas (from 3.10 to 3.40), professional opinion sharing during meetings (from 2.90 to 3.50), and willingness to challenge opinions (from 2.50 to 2.90). These findings indicate teachers challenging the school culture of nice and creating a space where different opinions are valued. Moreover, PLC recordings revealed a shift toward fewer facilitation moves and a more frequent challenging of ideas. Specifically, challenging instances identified increased from 4% to 12% in frequency, while facilitation moves decreased from 33% to 20%, further indicating an increase in the space for constructive controversy. Conclusion: The triangulation of data and analysis in this study allowed us to paint a richer picture of the changes in collegial collaboration before and after QTR participation. Taken together, the results indicates that QTR – a PD program centred on records of practice and a shared framework for discussing high quality teaching, contributed to growth in the interpersonal ties and constructive controversy among teachers at the school. These results support the arguments (ref) that centring PLCs on records of practice and providing support through a shared framework for discussing quality teaching is a promising way forward in teacher PD.

Ball, D. (1999). Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-based Theory of Professional Education. Teaching as the Learning Professional: Handbook of policy and practice/Jossey-Bass. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education- In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-31). Jossey-Bass. Brown, A. M., & Herbst, P. G. (2023). On designing better structures for feedback in practice-based professional development: Using “failure” to innovate. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 26(5), 581-605. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?. European journal of teacher education, 40(3), 291-309. Fulton, K., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM teaching in professional learning communities: A knowledge synthesis. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Gore, J. M., Miller, A., Fray, L., Harris, J., & Prieto, E. (2021). Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, 1-12. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1),181–217. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31209 345158 Kahmann, R., Droop, M., & Lazonder, A. W. (2022). Meta-analysis of professional development programs in differentiated instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 116, 102072. Kaufmann, O. T., & Ryve, A. (2022). Teachers’ framing of students’ difficulties in mathematics learning in collegial discussions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(7), 1069-1085. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220-237. Kirsten, N. (2020). Svenska lärares deltagande i kompetensutveckling. En statistisk bearbetning av uppgifter om lärares kompetensutveckling. PIRLS och PISA 2001-2018. Uppsala universitet. Kowalski, S. M., Taylor, J. A., Askinas, K. M., Wang, Q., Zhang, Q., Maddix, W. P., & Tipton, E. (2020). Examining factors contributing to variation in effect size estimates of teacher outcomes from studies of science teacher professional development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(3), 430-458. Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2019). Strengthening the research base that informs STEM instructional improvement efforts: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 260-293. MacDonald, E. (2011). When nice won’t suffice. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 45-47. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.