Current research findings concur with the claim that collective settings spur teacher development. Nevertheless, changing teacher approaches and practices depends on some conditions (Grangeat, 2012).

Meirink, Meijer and Verloop (2007) show that collaboration frequently affects teachers’ approaches but seldom teacher's practices; furthermore, any effects on practice often confirm the teacher's own previous methods. Overcoming these results, Andrews and Lewis (2002 found impacts on action in the classroom when the school organization allows teachers to share understandings through professional learning activities. In such a case, teachers changed their approaches and practices in order to meet students’ learning needs. Similar issues are reported by van der Valk and de Jong (2009) who showed that scaffolding experienced science teachers in IBST development is fruitful when these teachers are embedded within cooperative settings where they can reflect about specific professional questions with other colleagues, researchers and teacher educators from university. Similar issues have been found by other researchers. For instance Jaworski (2006) reports a project designed to create inquiry communities between teachers and educationists in order to promote and develop IBST methods within the classroom. The key feature of this inquiry community is that participants acknowledge and address issues and tensions within their approaches and practices. This critical alignment is both a goal and an outcome of the collective work. The study reports the way this community supports teachers towards their goals, such as fostering students’ self-esteem, despite their old habits and the social context which could impede these changes.

Consequently, three conditions seem active towards teacher changing of approaches and practices. Firstly, teachers need to rely on a school organization that has the potential of supporting the gradual process of teaching evolution. Secondly, schools need to be included in a network that scaffolds teachers’ reflections and evolutions. Thirdly, teachers and schools need to focus on specific professional question about teaching and learning. This leads to design collaborative settings that spur cooperation amongst several schools and amongst different kinds of professionals (teachers, head of schools, inspectors, researchers and teacher educators from the university), that share the same interest in resolving a common professional question, and that undertake the always long process of teacher change.  We propose to call this kind of collaborative settings’ Inquiry Based Continuing Professional Development programme’ since all the professionals involved in this IB-CPD programme endeavour to resolve the common problem but any of them know the solution of this problem.

Based on these inputs, this paper addresses a specific IB-CPD programme that concerns two low secondary and four primary schools of a common disadvantaged sector in France. A first question is to describe and understand the rules and structure that underpin this programme. A second question is to figure out a set of variables that will be monitored in order to evaluate the effects of the programme.

Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). The experience of a professional community: teachers developing a new image of themselves and their workplace. Educational Research, 44(3), 237-254. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. Grangeat, M. (2012). What is the engine of teacher development? CPD programmes vs teacher experience. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Cadiz, Spain Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and Practice in Mathematics Teaching Development: Critical Inquiry as a Mode of Learning in Teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 187-211. Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers individual learning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13 (2), 145–164. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding Science Teachers in Open‐inquiry Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.