Teacher collaboration and development in practice

(1)

Teacher collaboration and development in practice

An ethnographic approach to language teachers’

professional development in a university and an upper secondary school in Cuba

Helen Salinas

Department of Education Degree 30 HE credits Didactic science

Master Program in Didactic Science (181-300 credits)

Spring term 2020

Supervisor: Eva Insulander Examiner: Tore West

(2)

Teacher collaboration and development in practice

An ethnographic approach to language teachers’ professional

development in a university and an upper secondary school in Cuba

Helen Salinas

Abstract

By learning and developing continuously in practice, many teachers are trying to improve their teaching. In order to support this process, schools promote models of professional development (PD). Previous studies point out the educational system of Cuba as especially successful in the PD of their teachers. To understand why their model is successful, the author of this study visited and participated in the field for three months observing and speaking with Cuban teachers. What is their model of PD and what are its opportunities and constraints?

The study was conducted with an ethnographic approach, with field visits at foreign language departments of a university and an upper secondary school. Observations of different activities were made. Interviews and conversations took place with actors in the field. Much PD appeared to originate from collaboration, so this became the focus of the study. Wenger’s concept of learning in communities of practice formed a theoretical basis. To understand aspects of collaborative learning, Engeström’s theory of learning by expanding was also applied.

The PD model is regulated and controlled from a top-down perspective, but at the same time ensures much time and space for continuous learning together in communities and gives

teachers a meta-language to talk about development. Much learning in the communities is based on less experienced teachers learning from more experienced or from methodologists. These teacher communities may be interpreted as professional learning autonomies where individual and collective change and creativity is seen, sometimes even in conflict with other ideas in the educational system. This study also indicates that teacher PD is very intertwined in a context with a fine balance between opportunities and constraints. This high level of complexity implies that selecting and transferring separate success factors into other contexts may be difficult.

Keywords

Professional development, communities of practice, expansive learning, collaboration, language teaching

(3)

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my supervisor Eva Insulander who encouragingly guided me through this learning process.

Thanks to all teacher colleagues in Cuba for welcoming me into your communities.

Thanks to Stockholm University Education Department for the participation in the Cuban exchange program.

Thanks to all supportive colleagues in my Swedish teacher community.

Thanks to very patient family and boyfriend.

It meant very much to me.

(6)

2

1 Introduction

This study is about teacher professional development (PD) and teacher collaboration from a teacher perspective. As a language teacher for twenty-five years at Swedish secondary school and upper secondary school, thinking and talking about teaching quality seems to have changed. In the beginning teacher learning seemed individual, the teaching profession static and professional development meant attending courses learning more about the subject (Langelotz, 2014). Nowadays there seems to be a continuous commentary saying that the teachers need to develop and change in order to contribute more efficiently to the whole school improvement (Bejerot et al., 2014; Vähäsantanen et al., 2017a;

etc.). In this process teacher collaboration is a key factor according to some syntheses and overviews (Timperley et al., 2007; Kennedy, 2016). There seems to be a growing discourse on developing the profession through collaboration (Langelotz, 2014). Consequently, teachers are now told to start learning together; they are given handy instructional booklets¹ and are invited to participate in collegial learning programs run by the national agency of education or foundations (Lindvall et al.

2017). There is also a growing pressure to show better results and progress in education locally and nationally, and even economically (Ohlsson et al., 2016; Lauvås et al., 2016; Jurasaite et al., 2009;

etc). This is much pressure on the teachers, since in practice it is a considerable change to move from individual to collaborative working and learning (Lauvås et al., 2016). Working in an individualistic teaching culture it is may be difficult to understand what exactly collaborative learning will constitute in practice in time and space on a continuous basis at the schools. Studies indicate that Swedish schools might not be adapted for this learning at present. There are for example few opportunities for participating in learning activities (Skolverket, 2014; Parding, 2018; Francia & Riis, 2013; Rosén, 2017), an unwillingness to share with colleagues (Parding, 2008), individualistic approaches (Larsson, 2018; Nilsson, 2006; Lauvås et al., 2016) and short term thinking (Francia & Riis, 2013). Therefore, there may be a risk that the implementation of collaborative learning will fail to yield results, which would be unfortunate, because more collegial collaboration and learning may improve the strained working situation for the teachers, as suggested by Francia & Riis (2013) and Parding (2018).

Collegial collaboration may strengthen the professional practice of the teachers and their autonomy, but at the same time there are not many answers on how to develop a traditional organization into a community of practice (Lauvås et al., 2016).

While preparing professional development as a field of study for this thesis, an advertisement was published at Stockholm University Department of Education, asking students to apply to an exchange program between Cuba and Sweden, financed through a Linnaeus-Palme project. Since the Cuban educational system has been praised in studies (Carnoy et al., 2007; UNESCO, 1998) and since the teacher PD seems to be a part of the favorable outcome (Carnoy et al., 2007; Smith, 2012), I applied and was accepted to make a study of Cuban PD. Therefore, this study involves gaining insight about teacher learning in the context of Cuba where a teacher PD model has been ongoing since the 60s. In statistics Cuban student performances are the best in Latin America in subjects such as mathematics and reading and this partly owes to continuous and supervised teacher professional development (Carnoy et al., 2007; UNESCO, 1998). A field study with an ethnographic approach was organized at

1 Synligt lärande – presentation av en studie om vad som påverkar elevers studieresultat (2011) and Tio forskningsbaserade principer för lärares professionsutveckling - Sammanfattning av Helen Timperley’s Teacher professional learning and development (2013).

(7)

3

two language departments in Cuba to learn about this in practice. In the Swedish educational context, few continuous PD programs are found and there is a lack of empirical studies on teacher

collaboration as PD (Larsson, 2018). Even internationally there are few studies on teacher

collaboration in practice (Vangrieken et al., 2014). There are also few empirical studies on Swedish language teachers collaborating at all in practice (Francia & Riis, 2013; Bengtsson et al., 2014; Rosén 2017). This study aims to make a contribution to these fields.

Perspectives on professional development

The main topic of this paper is professional development (PD) of teachers. The terms ‘professional learning’ and ‘continuous professional development’ (CPD) will be used interchangeably with

‘professional development’ and will be seen as parts of same phenomenon. Some researchers defend the use of ‘development’ since it is an established term in the research field (Kennedy, 2016) whereas others (Timperley et al., 2007) advocate ‘learning’ since it emphasizes the teacher as an active learner in contrast to what they see as a more passive receiver of development.

PD is often described as a key factor in school improvement (Muijs et al., 2004; Kennedy 2014; etc.) and for this reason is often linked to efficiency and best practice (Mujis et al. 2004). This linking is problematic since teacher development at the same time is considered highly complex and

multidimensional (Kelchtermans 2004; Mujis et al. 2004). It is not easy to generalize what exactly makes PD successful since there are many views of what learning and development constitutes and what it is meant to lead to. Similarly, there are different conceptions of what teacher collaboration is and what purpose it holds. In this section there will be a short account for some of these different perspectives and thereafter it will be defined how it will be understood in this paper.

According to Eraut (1994), professional learning is professionals continually learning on the job through a succession of cases, problems or projects which need be learnt about. This may not

contribute to the general professional knowledge base if it is just seen as routine and there is no time to think about its significance. Even if it remains in memory it may not be integrated into any general theory of practice. In this way the knowledge base may remain relatively static even if there are exceptions. Consequently, there are several models on how to promote teachers’ PD and these can be understood and systemized in different ways.

Kennedy (2005) proposes a framework of nine key PD models found in the current field literature. She categorizes five of the models as transmissive (giving information) and they are updating, complete certificates, remedy underperformance, cascade and external assessment. Another three models are transitional (going through a change) and they are coaching/mentoring, community of practice and teacher research in practice (such as action research/professional inquiry). The remaining model Kennedy sees as transformative and it is a combination of the latter processes aiming at change. These models can be seen as nine concrete types of PD activities that the teachers experience in practice, but also, Kennedy explores an underlying idea of teacher autonomy and professionalism; that transmissive models may lead into more individual development related to accountability whereas collaborative development supports transformative practice (2005). However, in 2014 Kennedy updates this framework. She realizes some models may be malleable and used to different ends; not only for informing or changing. Mentoring “can be used to support, encourage autonomy, creativity and independence, but can equally be used as powerful means of professional socialization to encourage conformity to the status quo.” (ibid., p. 6). For the same reason, the models of completion of

(8)

4

certificates and community of practice are also moved to this new malleable category. The transitional category is omitted, and the collaborative professional inquiry is the new transformative which she suspects could be the category with most professional autonomy and teacher agency. Therefore, in her new framework she proposes that the purpose of the models and their underlying perspectives on professionalism, have to be included in the analyses, not only the categorizations of the models themselves.

Kelchterman (2004) suggests that PD are of three categorizations: concrete activities (teacher

education), ways of learning (teachers’ work lives and careers) and organizing the school and the staff (school improvement). It resembles Kennedy’s conceptualization only organized differently. However, Kelchtermans also points out that, these different approaches often intertwine and interact with each other and interacts with other factors such as sustainability, social and cultural context, and the measurement of PD. To get a more general idea of the field he proposes two main perspectives and

‘research agendas’ on the PD process and those are descriptive and prescriptive. The first perspective focuses more on the learner’s experience regarding meaning and determinants of PD with the aim to understand the phenomenon. The second perspective moves beyond description in order to ask: how can PD be organized most efficiently.

Similarly, Muijs et al. (2004) point out the complexity of the phenomenon. Many tend to focus more on the different activities needed to maintain and enhance knowledge, expertise and competence whereas these authors emphasize teachers’ learning within their broader change purposes, highlighting the complexities of these. It is both individual and with others, both natural and conscious, of benefit for both individual, group and school, also emotional and connected to career phases and context, Above all it is related to people’s professional identities and roles, and the goals of the organization they are working for. How it is evaluated is very important as well and according to the authors most useful when exploring the interrelationships between the actors. The outcome of CPD is not only individual and even if it is, what is learnt from a learning activity may be different from what is intended to be learnt. They also suggest a framework to understand the teaching practice, referring to Lieberman (1996) and his three settings in which development occurs - direct teaching, learning at school and learning out of school. Direct teaching is for example formal CPD programs and activities.

Informal job learning and departmentally or subject-based CPD are locations where teachers build a shared repertory of practice, drawing on the implicit and explicit knowledge and skills already existing in the group. Muiji et al. define this learning at school as non-formal learning and see that it requires internally and externally applied forms of evaluation of purpose (maintenance, improvement, change), location (e.g. on/off site), impact (e.g. didactic, collaborative) and outcome (e.g. direct/indirect benefits for school/department/classroom/teacher/pupil).

Cochrane-Smith & Lytle (1999) also focus on where the knowledge of the CPD is produced. They identify three types of knowledge, all valued in relation to the practice of the teachers. Either it is about knowledge-for-practice, which is formal knowledge generated by researchers outside the school or knowledge-of-practice generated by the teachers critically examining their own practice in a broader sense. The third concept is knowledge-in-practice which refers to the teachers’ practical knowledge generated through daily work connected to the effectiveness of their own classrooms (in Day & Sachs, 2004). This way of understanding PD resembles the categorization of Bolam (1999) which organizes the previous research in this paper (see next chapter).

Day & Sachs (2004) propose that the purpose of developing teachers can be understood through two distinct discourses dominating and limiting what can be said, thought and done about CPD overall.

(9)

5

Those are the two educational policies regarding teacher professionalism – the democratic

professionalism and the managerial professionalism. They argue that, in the democratic discourse, teachers regulate the profession more by themselves, collaborating as a group and as a broader profession, being responsible for more than just a single classroom individually. Whereas, in the managerial discourse, the teacher profession is more externally regulated and controlled, and with more political ends. Professional development obtains different meanings in these two different discourses, even though both share a desire to improve the teachers’ skills and performance, and the students’ learning outcome. What could be interpreted as a more managerial discourse is the more organizational perspective on PD as discussed by Ohlsson & Granberg (2016). They see that during the last twenty years, fields such as organizational learning, team learning and even business economics and management want to make learning more efficient and generate better results within school organizations (Ohlsson et al., 2016). This research often involves collective learning, but often from an instrumental organizational perspective rather than a situated cultural and historical context.

With this said, PD seems to have different meanings depending who the actor is and what her/his role and relationships are in the school organization, but also what purpose the PD serves and how it is evaluated. In this paper, PD will be seen from a language teacher perspective, since my professional identity is that of a language teacher. This means that what is seen and heard in the field is through a teacher’s perspective as well as the data is analyzed through a teacher’s perspective. This means that the purpose of PD is primarily to improve teaching in practice through interaction with other actors, such as other teachers, the principal, coaches and students. In this sense, the professional knowledge examined in this paper belongs to the category ‘knowledge-in-practice’ but since this knowledge is also examined through the present research process, it may be possible to say ‘knowledge-of-practice’

has been produced. Using the teacher perspective also means that PD is primarily organized as concrete activities, as explained by Muijis et al. (2004), but it can also be understood as learning in a multitude of other situations both at school and outside of school. Additionally, as PD is influenced by the context (Kelchterman, 2004; Muijs et al., 2004), the teacher perspective of this study is influenced by the Swedish teacher context. This will be further developed in the method section. Finally, as the study takes place within practice, it is difficult to see PD as either descriptive or prescriptive, nor about general school improvement at a more organizational level, since these perspectives seem to involve more of an outside perspective on practice.

Aim and research questions

The aim of the study is to gain an understanding of what characterizes the professional development (PD) in practice of some English teachers in Cuba, a national context where a PD model has been in operation for almost five decades. Particularly in focus are the patterns of social interaction within the model and how the model facilitates and constrains the collaborative learning.

Research questions:

• What do the teachers do in order to develop professionally? How do they act and why?

• What are the opportunities and constraints in this PD model?

This study uses an ethnographic approach and therefore, the research questions are to be viewed as open-ended, holistic, descriptive and closely connected to the real-life setting, which is common

(10)

6

within ethnography (Cohen et al., 2011). The questions were used as a general guidance during the data collection without limiting the view for the unexpected.

Context of the study

According to Swedish National Encyclopedia (2020), about 13 percent of the Cuban state budget goes to education, which is the highest in the world. In 2016, 72 percent of Cuba's working population had at least 12 years of education. Simply put, it can be said that the country has a very well-educated population. Everyone has the right to free education and literacy is 100 percent. The Swedish Institute of International Affairs (2018) explains that education has been the highest priority for the party that has governed the country since 1959. Schooling is free of charge at all levels. All schools are run by the state. In the country there are twelve universities and seven institutes for higher studies. However, the number of university students has more than halved since 2009. The slimming of the number of university places was aimed at maintaining the quality of education and to adapt the number of educated to the demand in the labor market. According to a study by UNESCO 1997–98, Cuban students had the best results in all grades in mathematics and reading in a comparison of education in thirteen Latin American countries (Carnoy et al., 2007; UNESCO, 1998).

Carnoy et al. (2007) conducted a comparative study in Cuba in 2002-2003 where classroom activities were observed and actors in schools interviewed at all levels. The social context was included.

Inspired by Bourdieu and Coleman, they develop and see their results based on a theory they call state- generated social capital. The authors conclude that Cuba's educational system extends mainly because

“Cuban children attend schools that are intensely focused on instruction and are staffed with well- trained, regularly supervised teachers in a social environment dedicated to high academic achievement for all social groups. Combining high-quality teaching with high academic expectations and a tightly controlled school management hierarchy with well-defined goals is what makes the Cuban system tick. ” (ibid., p. 141). Teacher capacity in the study is assessed on the basis of subject knowledge and classroom skills. Success factors according to the study are mentors during the first years of their careers, coaching through lesson visits by the knowledgeable principal, effective application of the syllabuses, educational and instructive leadership and supervision in schools, quality assurance of teachers through teacher exams and continuous teacher competence development. However, teacher training may be too practically oriented (p. 91ff). However, it is difficult to transfer successful PD factors to another social context that is the result of other historical forces. Carnoy et al. believes that in Cuba freedom is that everyone gets good education, has good health, feels safe and does not starve.

The price is that the state decides more, gives fewer choices and there is not as much individual freedom. For the school, this means: no illiteracy, healthy students, high attendance of pupils / teachers, the teaching profession has status, socially mixed classes, good schools across the country and continuity but in return few resources, low autonomy, unofficial national tests, little teacher- , student and parent influence. The study of Carnoy et al. must be seen in the light of the fact that it encompasses an entire country's educational context over time, with the result that concepts, and areas of knowledge become vague. The fact that teachers have low autonomy is only vaguely defined as not having the freedom to design their lessons.

Breidlid (2007) was in Cuba in 2005 collecting field data from interviews and studying educational discourse. He questions the study by Carnoy et al. (2007) for lacking recent updates available at the time it was written, about tourism being a threat to the educational system with much more well-paid jobs, undermining Carnoy et al’s facts about Cuba having an advantage recruiting higher-achieving graduates into teacher education. However, Breidlid could still confirm that the student teachers he

(11)

7

interviewed were very committed to the revolutionary ideas based on moral and idealistic rather than on economic principles; education and health are prioritized, and discrimination actively combatted.

Breidlid describes the discourse in Cuban schools as influenced by ideas of Fidel Castro, José Martí and Ernesto Che Guevara, in which solidarity, self-sacrifice and honesty are emphasized. The idea of consensus is important. Socialism, Marxism and Leninism are taught. All textbooks are produced in Cuba and distributed to all students in the country. After the fall of the Soviet Union the economic situation changed dramatically for the worse and then on top came the economic embargo by the US.

There have been several reforms in the educational system ever since and the state funds maintain an extremely well-organized system in terms of training, teaching and school administration, as well as high level of research competence, focusing mainly on the educational reforms. Breidlid refers to other studies showing high quality of the education in Cuba – the OREALC surveys in 2004 and the EFA Global monitoring Report 2005. In the report UNESCO sees three characteristics in Cuba: high esteem for the teaching profession, continuity of policy and high level of public commitment to education.

Griffiths (2009) has examined the well-documented educational achievements of revolutionary Cuba over the last fifty years. He sees that the preparation of the teachers was an immediate focus of the government from the beginning. Already in 1961, the new pedagogical institutions were established with a new system of teacher preparation with a socialist political orientation. Also, the Ministry of Education established a system with methodologists who visit the schools in order to assess, monitor and control the teaching of Marxism-Leninism, and provide support for teachers. He also sees that just like any contemporary education system there is a battle to train and retain quality teachers.

2 Theory and previous research

Firstly, the two learning theories used in the data analysis of this study will be explained in how the theories coincide and differ, how they in detail explain learning, how they will be used together in one framework and what central concepts will be used in the analysis. Secondly, there is an account of relevant previous research involving learning and development in the teacher profession. Lastly, the theories and the previous research will be viewed in relation to this study.

Learning in communities and by expanding

In this study two theories are used since two types of learning are discerned in the data and need different explanations. Engström’s theory on expansive learning is needed to explain one distinct case of change in the learning whereas Lave and Wenger’s theory on situated learning in communities of practice explains the continuous learning. However, the three theorists share a similar view on learning as primarily the result of doing activities together, not as the result of psychological processes within cognitivism, constructivism or solely social learning (Wenger, 1998; Engeström, 1987). Equally they share the idea that conflicts and problem-solving contribute to learning and they view learning in practice as central and in relation to communities, artefacts, rules, division of labor in a historical context. However, the importance given to these different components differs, since the theories originate from different yet compatible perspectives. Engeström’s concept of expansive learning is from activity theory where the learning activities can be analyzed as separate units against the background of community, artefacts, rules and division of effort (Engeström, 2009). Contrarily,

(12)

8

Wenger’s concept of CoP originates from social theory and they see learning activities as part of a social, continuous process within communities, inseparable from everyday life (Wenger, 1998).

Whereas the activities in situated learning may be very subtle, without words and short-lived in the moment (ibid.), the activities in expansive learning stand out from the pattern of daily actions, as distinct changes of the course of learning. Social learning in communities could be interpreted as learning more in the background, so to speak, compared with Engeström, but that the two ways of learning also are interdependent and influenced by each other, and going on simultaneously. (Lave &

Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998, 2015; Engeström, 1987, 2009, 2010) Learning in communities of practice

To begin with, there will be a brief overview of learning in CoP and how it is related to other

perspectives. Thereafter, the central concepts of the theory will be further explained. Lave and Wenger (1991) elaborated the concept of legitimate peripherical participation (LPP) within the field of situated learning and later Wenger (1998) developed the concept further into a framework of community of practice (CoP). In legitimate peripherical participation the learning between master/student or mentor/mentee is in focus and captures the process by which newcomers become included in a CoP.

Its foundations are from ethnographic studies and theories of social practice. In CoP the view on learning expands to whole communities and development of an identity (Wenger, 1998; Lave &

Wenger, 1991). In short, Wenger (2011) defines communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact

regularly. The expansion from LPP to CoP involves more disciplines, but social theory remains as the main contributor given that learning is seen as participation and engagement in actions and

interactions, embedded in culture and history. Learning is also the evolution of practices, the inclusion of newcomers, and the development and transformation of identities. Hereby, Wenger sees that his wider perspective of CoP:s involves theories of collectivity, subjectivity, power and meaning, and he defends his view as being in between these theories using the social theory of learning (Wenger, 1998). This means that he places the concept of identity in the community, between the social and the individual, so that both can be talked about in terms of the other. This implies that in for example a CoP of teachers this identity would apply to the professional teacher identity (Wenger, 1998). Equally Wenger places the issues of power and meaning in the practice of the community and related to the identities of its members. (1998). Knowledge is also seen in relation to the community, as the

competence with respect to activities that are valued by the community. Knowing is participating and being engaged in the activities. (Wenger, 2009).

Wenger (2011) sees that we all belong to communities of practice – at home, at work, at school, in our hobbies. They are everywhere. Many are informal with no name and learning may not even be

intentional. At work we probably belong to a more formal community of close colleagues and customers in which activities are accomplished in interaction.

Learning

To Wenger (1998) learning and development is inherent in communities of practice. It evolves in the members’ sustained mutual engagement in pursuing and sharing an enterprise together, building up the coherence of the community. Sustainability indicates that the practice has to be understood in a

temporal dimension. Development of practice usually takes time and needs continuity. It is not an object to be handed over. Wenger (1998) defines knowing as to live in the competence and experience of the members of the community and the learning as an ongoing, social, interactional process in practice. He recognizes learning of individual members in so far as they are individuals with

(13)

9

professional identities involved in trajectories of participation in the CoP. Given these characteristics of learning, there is need of access to standings of masters and opportunities to communally engage and share (Wenger 1998).

In the two following sections, some central concepts within Wenger’s theory will be defined (Wenger, 1998). They are only a selection of relevant concepts for this study and do not account for the

complete picture of Wenger’s community of practice. For example, a major part of his theory is about the design of learning within the community and between communities, which could be useful for this study, but due to limited space and time, it had to be excluded. Instead the focus will be on the other two major parts of his theory - practice and identity. To Wenger (1998), practice and identity are interlinked, but they differ in that the practice is more focused on learning within the community as a whole, whereas the category of identity is more connected to the individual members’ learning within the community.

Practice

Simply put, practice refers to what the members in a community have developed in order to be able to do their job and have a satisfying situation at work (Wenger, 1998). Wenger discusses the concept of practice in relation to meaning, community, learning and knowing. For this study, relevant key ideas connected to learning have been selected from these different areas.

Wenger suggests two ways of finding meaning by engaging in the world - participation and reification. Participation is an active process of actors who are members of social communities. It involves the whole person, including bodies, minds, emotions and social relations. He argues that participation is not the same as collaboration, since participation involves all relations, including the conflictual. Reification means “making into a thing” and is how ideas are turned into concrete objects.

For example, “justice” can be turned into a blindfolded maid holding a scale or “democracy” can be talked about as if it is an active agent. Reification can also be the products of negotiation and something that shapes our experience. To Wenger reification is a wide term, including both more concrete products such as symbols and terms, as well as processes such as making, designing,

describing. Reification occupies much of our collective energy and can be very powerful. Participation and reification form a duality that is a fundamental aspect of the constitution of communities of practice. Both are needed for the negotiation and they are not opposites. Our involvement in the world is social, even when it does not clearly involve interactions with others. Activities can implicitly involve other people who may not be present. The meaning of what we do is always social.

In the practice of the community there is learning along three dimensions and together they enable coherence. The coherence either strengthens or weakens the community and its learning. The dimensions are mutual engagement, joint enterprise and share repertoire, and they will be shortly explained here.

To Wenger (1998) practice is not abstract. It is about mutual engagement; about people engaged in actions whose meaning they negotiate with one another. Negotiation is a collective process that includes all meaning making in social relations directly or indirectly, such as talking, acting, thinking, solving problems, disagreeing etc. Requirements for mutual engagement to function are: all members are included in the negotiation about what matters (belonging); they have dilemmas in common; there is diversity and different competences; and that it is more important to know how to give and receive help than to try to know everything by yourself. Wenger also uses the similar concept of alignment in his theory as a type of mutual engagement and belonging, only it embraces a broader enterprise in time

(14)

10

and space and beyond the community and constitutes political or social movements, educational standards, etc.

The joint enterprise is the result of the collective process of negotiation. It does not mean everyone believes the same thing, but it is communally negotiated. It is joint in the sense that the members share working conditions, have dilemmas in common or create similar responses but still individual

situations exist, and responses vary depending on the persons involved and from day to day.

Nonetheless, the responses are interconnected because they are engaged in a joint enterprise at a workplace. The joint enterprise is not only a result in form of a stated goal but creates relations of mutual accountability. It is the locally negotiated response of the members in the CoP. The response belongs to its members despite outside forces beyond their control. Relations of mutual accountability includes what matters and what does not, what is important and why it is important, what to do and not to do, what to pay attention to and what to ignore and so on. It is about being responsible to others by not making their lives more difficult. Mutual accountability defines if members are concerned or unconcerned by what they are doing.

Over time the mutual engagements and joint enterprises will lead to a shared repertoire represented by documents, stories, tools, routines, words, experiences, etc. that will be resources in new trajectories of the community (Wenger, 1998).

Identity

Wenger (1998) believes there is a profound connection between identity and practice. Just as negotiation of meaning in practice contributes to the learning in a community, the negotiation of oneself contributes to learning. The way we live day to day, how we participate in the community contributes to an identity and is not only about thinking and saying about ourselves. Identity arises in practice through interplay with participation and reification. It is a temporal process since it involves a constant becoming and incorporates the past and the future. Wenger uses the term trajectories for these individual paths forming the identities within the communities and the CoP is a field of possible trajectories. In this study, the trajectories of interest are the generational encounters in the legitimate peripherical participation (LPP) between the so-called old-timers and the newcomers. Lave and Wenger (1991) explains that legitimacy means that you belong to the community. Peripherality suggests that there are multiple, varied, more- or less-engaged and inclusive ways of being located in the fields of participation. There is no central participation, nor reduction to an end point. Changing locations and perspectives are part of actors’ learning trajectories, developing identities, and forms of membership. Lave and Wenger point out that here lies a major contradiction and tension between the old-timers and newcomers in the community. The old-timers are often full participants and the newcomers want to and must become the new full participants. To be full participants and competent members of the community, means learning and involvement in the three dimensions mentioned above. Knowing is defined in this locally negotiated regime of competence. Yet knowing is not static since old-timers need to learn as practice changes and something new can appear an act of competent participation. This interaction between competence and experience is crucial for the development of practice. LPP is not about the zone of proximal learning (ZPD), in the sense it is scaffolding in order to support a later performance without assistance, nor that it is cultural interpretation accessible through instruction and everyday experience. LPP is about collective social ZPD as interpreted by Engeström (1987 in Lave & Wenger 1991) where the structure of the social world is included in the analysis (see more below).

(15)

11 Learning by expanding

To Engeström (2015) problems and reactions to them is of primary concern when learning and from this idea he divides learning into three levels. To the first level belongs unconscious instrumental Learning I where the learners basically do what they are told with instruments given. At the second level the Learning II always owes to a problem situation and is of an unconscious trial and error nature (Learning IIa) or reflective and based on productive experimentation where an instrument is found or invented (Learning IIb). Learning IIb is like reflection-in-action. The third level Learning III is always embedded in Learning I-II and originates from a double bind problem situation in an activity system where the whole collective is involved.

The nature of learning at the third level is so different Engeström calls it development. It is not

"better” or at a “higher level” but denser and more societal (Engeström, 2015). Development is the result of learning. In learning activities, development itself becomes the object of learning. It is like meta-thinking. In Learning III the double bind is crucial and cannot be resolved through separate individual actions alone, only in joint cooperative actions, which create a historically new form of activity. Necessary for development is also a need state that needs to be resolved. A double bind situation is when there is no obvious solution at hand; a situation when the solutions are contradictions and a completely different alternative must be chosen if development is to happen instead of

regression. The result is collective expansive development, also called expansive learning. In this the collective ZPD is essential and defined by Engeström as the “distance between the everyday actions of individuals and the historically new form of the societal activity that can be collectively generated as a solution to the double bind potentially embedded in everyday actions” (Engeström, 2015, p. 138).

Engeström illustrates the multi-voicedness of expansive learning in activity system models where the community’s multiple points of view, traditions, and interests are positioned and interrelated. These points are categorized as community, mediating artefacts, rules, and division of labor. They are the source of innovation, demanding actions of translation and negotiation. They are also linked to

historicity which means that activity systems are shaped over longer periods of time. In this system the learning activities are positioned and related to all points, along with the subjects, objects and

outcomes of the activities. (Engeström, 2009).

Community and expansive learning joined in activity system Learning in communities and learning by expansion can be used in the same activity system framework. The activity system can be used as an analytic tool and framework to understand the different types of professional learning and development, separately and joined. Engeström uses the activity system as a necessary analytic tool and framework to pinpoint and explain specific learning objects and learning outcomes (figure 1). Wenger’s concept of CoP can be placed within the activity system at the system’s base, as one of the central components - the community. Wenger recognizes the importance of all other components of the activity system as interrelated to the community (figure 2).

Equally does Engeström but whereas he focuses more on the product and outcome of the system, Wenger focuses on the process in the system between community, artefacts, rules, division of effort.

This way both theories are in the same framework and interrelated capturing parts of the complexity of the whole learning situation - the multiple layers of history engraved in the artefacts, rules and

organization of the participants, the community of multiple points of view, traditions and interests; in conjunction with a separate activity. Engeström (2015) asks these questions related to the activity system: Who are the learners? What do they do and why? How are they learning – what are the key

(16)

12

actions? And why do they make the effort to learn? These questions resemble the questions of the present study.

Figure 1: The theory of expansive learning Figure 2: The theory of community of practice placed within the activity system (bold style placed within the activity system (bold style

letters) letters)

Previous research

In this section the search process concerning previous research will be described and then followed by a short account of the main findings relevant to this study. The previous research is organized in line with the conceptual map of how to categorize and understand CPD literature proposed by Bolam (1999). He categorizes CPD into four groups depending on the studies’ fundamental purpose, mode of working and target audiences. They are:

1) knowledge-for-understanding literature (theoretical and critical policy analyses) 2) knowledge-for-action-literature (evaluations of PD programs)

3) policy maker literature (evaluations of policy statements)

4) practitioner literature (instrumental/reflexive accounts of practice and methods with/without theory).

This mapping also helps to locate this study, which is mainly in the scope of the fourth category of reflective practitioner literature which aims at improving one’s own profession’s practice. It can be counted as a research activity if theory-based and open to scrutiny. Policymaker literature is omitted.

PD is a vast research area and had to be limited to two areas of interest in this study – research on PD focusing on collaborative learning and PD focusing on language teaching. This being said, there were still many obstacles in the search process within the field since many different concepts are used either synonymously with overlapping definitions or even with different definitions depending on the

researcher. The research field does not have an established terminology (Vangrieken et al., 2014;

Ohlsson & Granberg, 2016; Desimone, 2009; etc). Literature relevant to PD can be found under very diverse key words (Kelchtermans, 2004). For example, the term CPD was interchanged with PD, continuous professional learning, professional learning, ongoing PD, in-service training, workplace learning, etc. The terms collegial learning, collaborative learning, collective learning and learning community had to be interchanged in the search in order to secure some relevant matches. These terms were also combined with variations of foreign language teaching. Searches were also made with the

(17)

13

Swedish equivalent terminology as well as with the Spanish but then only connected to Cuba. Some research from Cuba was found but it was very linked to specific contextual situations which were difficult to use in the present study.

The databases used were Google Scholar, ERIC and DiVA. I also searched the Swedish independent research institute Skolporten for relevant Swedish theses, as well as information at the homepage of the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket). With the same key words on my mind, I also scanned reference lists in relevant research studies, followed current debates on education in the national media and in teacher trade journals, participated in conferences and in the national PD project Språksprånget for language teachers in Sweden, since in the ethnographic approach you are

encouraged to learn about different social worlds and not rush into conclusions and force

interpretations into molds (Hammersley et al., 2007). Research published the last ten years (2009- 2019) was prioritized but older was not rejected if it was relevant. Additionally, I prioritized research that involved language teachers and/or upper secondary/university teachers. Studies found with more attention on the students’ assessment rather than teachers’ PD were excluded.

Knowledge-for-understanding literature

Kennedy (2016) has reviewed 28 experimental studies on PD programs from 1975 to 2013 according to their underlying theories of action of what teachers should learn and how to help them to enact that idea within practice. They cover K-12 teachers teaching core academic subjects (language arts, mathematics, sciences, social sciences). Since the studies differed in multiple ways, she accounted for them graphically instead of statistically. Five criteria are met in the studies: about PD only, include student achievement and controls of motivation; having a minimum study duration of one year and following teachers rather than students over time. The data analyzed are statistics on effects at different levels and characterization of PD programs through their content and strategies for

facilitating enactment. The content is sorted according to teaching problems connected to curriculum content, student behavior, student participation and finding ways to expose the students’ thinking. The facilitating enactment (how to help teachers enact new ideas within the practice) is categorized in methods of prescription, strategies, insight and body of knowledge.

Kennedy (2016) makes relevant findings for this study regarding collective participation, intensity of PD, coaches and negative effects. PD realized in learning communities seems to vary in effectiveness and sometimes even have a negative impact on student learning. Thus, Kennedy says we need to move past the concept that learning communities per se contribute to learning and instead examine the content such groups discuss and the nature of intellectual work they are engaged in. Regarding the intensity of PD, she finds no evidence that more intensive programs are more efficient, especially not in combination with prescriptive messages. Kennedy claims that overall, it is difficult to find results of effects of programs over time, since researchers often measure at the end of the programs. Instead she urges researchers to follow up teacher and student learning one or two years after the PD itself since teachers usually seem to incorporate new ideas in ongoing practice slowly. In the studies it also showed that coaches who collaborated with the teachers on lesson planning were more efficient than coaches who only observed and evaluated. She also noticed little attention on the PD providers and expertise but there were signs that outside experts hired for projects were less efficient than

individuals and groups who had long histories of working with teachers and were familiar with the teachers and with the problems they face and based their program on their own personal expertise and experience. Negative outcome of PD models ought to be null effect, not a negative effect, claims

(18)

14

Kennedy. She suspects the negative outcomes arising from negative emotional responses – resistance or resentment toward the program’s demand – as if more noise added to their working environment.

Timperley et al. (2007) also reviewed PD programs and made a synthesis of 97 international studies associated with teacher professional learning and development. The primary purpose of the synthesis was to pinpoint the professional learning opportunities for teachers that had a positive impact on student outcomes. Different PD activities were covered in the studies – from just listening and watching to discussing and analyzing own theories of teaching. The authors acknowledge the importance of informal and incidental learning but exclude it since neither the process nor the outcomes are typically documented. The social context is included and recognized to have a strong influence on teacher learning. In the synthesis they find that collegial communities as single

interventions often only strengthen the existing practice. There are many examples from research of situations when time and resources invested in these communities, in order to implement something new or to solve problem, lead to no change in student outcome. The communities seem hindered by norms of politeness and too little challenge (Timperley, 2008²). They also found a case when professional community did not contribute to improve student outcomes and even made it worse compared to control group and imply that cases like this might depend on the PD provider not setting an agenda or give useful advice or not addressing issues of content knowledge (Timperley et al., 2007). However, the research is contradictive on how much collegial communities improve student outcomes.

Vangrieken et al. (2014) have also made a systematic review but limited to teacher collaboration. They reviewed 82 studies between 2000-2012 with the aims to provide an overview, to investigate the focus and depth of collaboration, to list benefits and explore facilitating and hindering factors in the action to realize effective collaboration. In the study they try to define the vague term ‘teacher collaboration’, often used interchangeably with professional community/professional learning community, community of practice, community of practice, group and team. The authors construct a collaborative continuum described by the degree of team entitativity. The completely individualized teacher work was placed on one end and on the other end was collaborative work in its fullest form. Collaboration seems mostly structured within-grade and at cross-grade level, but also between teachers teaching the same subjects or interdisciplinary. More loosely organized teachers within ad hoc natured groups is also an

alternative. The collaboration can also be of a temporary or a long-lasting nature.

The focus and depth of teacher collaboration is also a continuum from mere superficial to deep level with a high degree of team entitativity. According to two of the studies in Vangrieken et al. (Gajda &

Koliba, 2008; Somech, 2008), in cultures of teacher isolation and individualism, along with individual autonomy, there may be hinderances in deep level collaboration. Vangrieken et al. notice that critical reflection and discussion on teaching practice was rare in the studies; it seems to require a higher degree of team entitativity and it also depends on the content of the collaboration (the tasks). Some tasks might not benefit from group work at all.

Positive consequences found in teacher collaboration were the benefits for the students, as well as the teachers themselves and the whole school. It can lead to cultural change, innovations and a more flattened power structure. Mostly teachers profit (e.g. less isolated, more motivated, improved morale).

The authors discuss that top-down initiatives and needs might lead to contrived collegiality and to superficial rather than deep-level collaboration. The authors do not see teacher collaboration as a

2 A short version of the original synthesis from 2007.

(19)

15

magic solution. For the teachers there could be drawbacks, such as less of the strongly appreciated individual autonomy and independence. Also, the teacher groups not always function as they are supposed to. There is a need for supervision. Facilitating factors in teacher collaboration, that can support the process, seem to be realizing task interdependence, developing clear roles for the

members, a defined focus, providing meeting time, etc. Hindering factors seem to be that teachers are not convinced to collaborate in the cultural and organizational context they are in. A strong-rooted culture of individualism, autonomy and independence appears to be profound in education. Without openness to collaborate, planned collegiality is lost. Autonomy can be both facilitating and hindering at the same time whereas there is disagreement whether heterogeneity of the group contribute or not.

Effective collaboration is often studied from two different aspects – the process and the outcome. In the studies the process is described as more individual-oriented (e.g. appropriate knowledge and skills, clear individual roles) or more collaborative-oriented (e.g. distribution of responsibilities, team innovation, communication). Effective collaboration outcome is to have a team that performs well, reaches goals and leads to improved teaching. However, the teacher collaboration can never be separated from its context. Educational context and culture and the characteristics of the profession strongly influence.

Knowledge-for-action literature

In a Swedish context Lindvall et al. (2017) compared two one-year PD programs for grade 1-9 math teachers and found that, despite similar contexts, the student outcome after one year differed. The programs offered PD material, lesson planning, evaluation and coaches within collegial meetings. All schools and math teachers in the municipality participated and the data for the study consists of large amounts of statistics on students test results, a teacher evaluation and content analyses on the PD program material, based on two program theories. On the one hand, the program theory of instruction which is more concerned about the subject matter content – how students learn the content, how to make it meaningful, improve the subject matter knowledge of the teachers etc. On the other hand, the program theory of teacher change which mainly promotes change in teachers’ knowledge or practice, helping the teachers to translate new ideas into their own context. Here the authors use Kennedy’s four PD characteristics of facilitating enactment mentioned earlier: prescription, strategies, insights or presenting body of knowledge. Lindvall et al. (2017) primarily categorize the PD material offered to the teacher into possessing subject matter knowledge (teacher knowledge) or knowing in action (teacher practice). Then the authors also categorize the material into Kennedy’s four methods of facilitating enactment. The result suggests that the difference in student outcome after one year depends on the coherence between the PD program content (the material) and the teacher’s current knowledge and practice during the project. The authors also see that the time available for the PD might have affected the result, since some teachers reported less support and available time in their evaluation. Maybe it explains why teachers also reported that the material provided was more valuable for their teaching rather than the time available, the coaches and the principal. One drawback with the study, which the researchers themselves point out, is that the analyzing of the materials provided during the course do not necessarily represent what actually occurred during the PD-meetings.

However, the authors argue that at least the materials capture more of the content than the designers’

descriptions of the programs.

Langelotz (2013) investigated teachers’ collective CPD through a model of peer group mentoring for two and a half years with the aim to find out how and what kind of expertise was constructed. A team of six teachers in a team in a Swedish school in grades 7-9 were observed and interviewed. The

(20)

16

content discussed in the meeting was a chosen problem of one of the teachers and the others acted as supportive peers and one teacher was the moderator. Next time these roles of the participants changed.

The theoretical and methodological framework of the study is based on practice theory where

‘sayings’, ‘doings’ and ‘relatings’, in relation to external discourses. Since power relations also were included in the study, inspired by Foucault, the dualistic and discursive concepts were of interest, such as good-bad, skilled-not skilled, normal-abnormal. Langelotz (2013) sees the power positioning within the team as essential since the practice is about developing skills from what is possible in the

discourses. Overall, the findings show that, on the one hand, the peer group mentoring lead to more solidarity, trust, collaboration and coherence. On the other hand, there were incidents of indirect advice and collegial correction rather than reflecting together, as well as showing resistance rather than admitting being sometimes less skilled. This positioning created categorizations of what good practice is and what skilled teachers do. Langelotz (2014) points out that often good relations between the teachers are taken for granted and not seen as a problem in the literature. Instead the focus is often on the importance of sharing a vision of what supports the student learning and she refers to for example Timperley (2008).

The qualitative meta-synthesis by Vähäsantanen et al. (2017a) embraces three work-related training settings (an identity coaching program, a leadership coaching program and a work conference) at a university and a hospital. Vähäsantanen et al. understand PD as an action-based phenomenon where both individuals and collectives are mainly change-oriented (transformative). In the meta-synthesis it is found that professional agency and work-related learning are closely intertwined, and to foster learning it is necessary to create social events in everyday work for the enactment and activation of agency, and to strengthen meaningful decision making on work-related matters. Different forms of professional agency emerged and resulted in changes in professional identities at both individual and collective levels, but not without difficulties in some cases. Resisting agency and power hierarchies were found to hinder the development of shared work practices. In one of the programs the

participants reported exhaustion since the practice did not offer any opportunities for influencing.

Beneficial conditions were for example an open confidential and equal atmosphere with sharing experiences, experimenting and innovating. More attention to social context is suggested particularly in terms of cultivating identities.

In Vähäsantanen et al. (2017b) the identity coaching program is further examined through an art-based program the authors give adequate support, in the form of collaboration within social interaction, to see if it promotes professional learning. The art-based methods are grounded in that learning is not only about cognition, knowledge-based processing and verbal expression, but also about emotions and pictorial expression. The 59 participants were interviewed after the program and, through qualitative and quantitative analyses, findings show that professional learning is connected to the self (crafting a professional identity), relationships (knowing your colleagues and becoming more active member in the work community) and competencies (developing socio-emotional knowledge and skills). The study also shows awakening of collective identity in the professional relationships. Through discussions and shared experiences, the togetherness increased. The participants created a shared understanding for missions and future plans within the work organization. In this identity coaching program, the authors claim to have seen the frames for constructing a collective identity which improved the social climate and made it easier to collaborate. They also see the earlier lack of time to meet each other and have discussions as the main obstacle in forming this collective identity. From the togetherness and trust, the program also made the groups negotiate and act to change collective matters, as a collective force. Nonetheless, none of the participants had taken concrete action to practice agency collectively after the program. Another finding of interest for this study is that the

(21)

17

participants by developing their emotional knowledge and skills at work, learnt how to give and receive feedback through analyzing and exercising their feedback practices in authentic situations.

They also became better at handling their own emotions, how to react and approach other people, including how to accept critical comments in personal relations. However, six participants out of 59 reported no outcome in the domain of the professional self, even if that was the aim of the program.

Practitioner literature

In this section with the practitioner literature, the subjects, the informal learning, the relations and the working conditions seem to play an important role.

Parding & Berg-Jansson (2018) interviewed thirty Swedish upper-secondary teachers (subjects not mentioned) from both public and private schools about their working and learning conditions. From coding and analyzing qualitatively the data the authors found that the teachers themselves considered subject-focused learning most central in their PD, both formally and informally, and with subject colleagues with whom they say they have most to share and most to learn with and from. Spatial and temporal aspects of organization of work tend to impede this learning. The results involve three different theoretical fields – education, workplace learning and sociology of professions – whereas the last is used as an analytical lens that problematizes the discrepancies between what the teachers want to learn and how work needs to be organized to enable this. The Swedish school context with

privatization, decentralization, choice, marketisation and competition are seen as factors that influence on PD. They refer to other studies that see conflicting logics between the profession, the bureaucracy and the market. The teachers control their work via the knowledge base, collegiality and specific ethics, where trust and responsibility are essential. The logic of bureaucracy is based on rules, regulations and standardization where documented knowledge is emphasized. These are contrasting views of organization. Privatization might even have a negative influence on teachers. For instance, it can affect the willingness to share with colleagues. The authors also conclude from their study that in this context much PD is based on ”one size fits all” approach, preferably with generic content, such as IT. Parding et al. see teachers as active and aware actors who already are learning informally at a daily basis at work and who would benefit from more responsibility and possibility to organize their own learning, both individually and at school level, without a top-down management. The authors also believe this would make the teaching career more attractive and less stressful. Parding et al. also see the subject focus and the close daily work with subject colleagues emerge as central for PD. The authors refer to data from a labor union saying that 50 % of the Swedish teachers in modern languages, PE and mathematics are not given opportunities to learn what they themselves identify needing in their subject. The teachers request both formal and informal learning connected to their subject. What exactly formal and informal learning constitute is not clearly defined but from what it says indirectly informal learning could be the daily situational need-based collegial learning at a mutual workplace. Temporal and spatial factors facilitate informal learning in form of possibilities to visit each other’s classes, talking during breaks, sharing offices and staff rooms and being organized in subject groups rather than program groups. Formal learning from the spatial and temporal perspective could be interpreted as being able to attend courses and conferences with the help of substitute teachers and be given opportunities to learn from each other in more formal meetings.

Jurasaite-Harbison & Rex (2010) also apply a teachers’ perspective in their ethnographic study when comparing the continuous workplace learning for two years through eleven teachers at one elementary school in the U.S. and two in Lithuania. The study includes both informal learning and formal

professional learning. Informal learning is defined as the learning that occurs in both planned and spontaneous interactions and reflections among teachers concerning their practice. Formal learning is

(22)

18

defined as prescribed PD with educational innovations introduced to teachers through systems of workshops, presentations and projects. Nonetheless, the authors see all learning as informal workplace learning, since the school culture is in focus and that is where all learning is contextually situated and happens in interaction with other teachers. School cultures precede and mediate both governmental and individual initiatives. In order to understand how teacher learning is constructed, sustained, or changed, the authors believe in observing teacher conversations as the teachers learn, in the places they learn, and ask them to talk about their learning. Thus, learning is visible in discourses, or language, as forms of social action with social meaning, and in order to interpret the discourses they must be seen in relation to social and political contextual conditions. Through interactional

ethnography methods the authors examine relationships between teachers’ learning and the immediate work contexts, including artefacts, school routines, organization patterns and traditions as well as teachers’ values, beliefs and assumptions about them.

Jurasaite-Harbison et al. (2010) found that teachers are more likely to engage in informal workplace learning if: the schools promote professional interactions; teachers regard informal learning as important; collaboration is explicit for teachers and administrators (leaders and teachers and administrators share a common view of the educational policies); outside collaboration is available and supported; and institutional history and national policies create a stable and positive environment.

Overall, the study shows how complex the dynamics and features of school cultures are, including their connections to history and policy. The American school was influenced by high stake evaluation of teachers’ competence where teachers were more focused on satisfying requirements than building a collaborative culture. Social isolation was assumed to be inherent in the profession. The teachers in the Lithuanian school with established institutional history and reputation were encouraged by socio- political conditions of independence to affirm their ways of learning collaboratively. Conversely, the Russian school with even longer history and better reputation in the same Lithuanian context had to switch from learning to surviving. To change their traditional and valued ways of collaboration was interpreted by the researchers as much pressure from outside. On the other hand, in all contexts there were also exceptions, much depending on relations between colleagues who felt trust for each other.

There was an example of collective sharing in the U.S and exclusion of a new colleague who did not suit the team’s way of working in the Lithuanian school.

There is one Swedish study (a master thesis) to be found on Cuban CPD. Buchberger (2013) investigated two CPD strategies in Cuba – methodological work sessions and further education at university. The methodological work sessions are described as being held by the methodology expert in the municipality every two weeks who tells about the content/theme of the classes, how to teach it, what the aim is and give recommendations on exercises and methods. It is facilitated by all teachers using the same text material the same weeks. The other every two weeks the head subject teacher at school is responsible discussing and reaching consensus more in detail about the content/theme and its evaluating process within the teacher group. Further education as a strategy is usually linked to higher studies and to problems and needs in the schools where the teacher still works part-time. In the study eight upper-secondary math teachers in Cuba were interviewed, but not observed, examining if and how they professionally developed through these strategies. The data was analyzed through the interconnected model of professional growth which describes teacher change as dependent on changes in four domains (external, personal, practice and consequence). The result indicates that the

methodological work session strategy promotes a collaborative approach on the development of education at schools, simply because the teachers have to meet continuously and are given time to reflect and learn together with the aim to improve the teaching and reach goals. Buchberger discerns also other incentives to develop professionally through the methodological sessions: the content

Teacher collaboration and development in practice

Teacher collaboration and development in practice

An ethnographic approach to language teachers’

professional development in a university and an upper secondary school in Cuba

Helen Salinas

Teacher collaboration and development in practice

Abstract

Contents

Acknowledgements

1 Introduction

Perspectives on professional development

Aim and research questions

Context of the study

2 Theory and previous research

Learning in communities and by expanding

Previous research