University of Stirling, School of Education

Better together?

Understanding the processes involved in learning rounds as an

instance of teacher collaborative professional learning

Catriona Oates

8/12/2014

Introduction

In recent years a focus on the link between teacher quality and student outcomes (PISA;

McKinsey; OECD; TIMMS etc.) has directed a spotlight on methods and practices in teacher

education and development. Teachers' individual and collective capacities are seen as key to

promoting school improvement (Harris 2011). Teacher professional learning communities

(PLCs) could be understood as a mechanism for enhancing such capacity in teachers and

significant research evidence has been generated to support this view (Cordingley et al. 2005;

Stoll et al. 2006, 2007; Edwards, 2012). Collaborative observational practices such as Learning

Walks, Learning Triads or Power of 3 are increasingly advocated in education and other

professions as a means of supporting home-grown professional learning situated in the

workplace. This is not to say that such practices are held in universal positive regard; Indeed

Watson (2012) and Fullan (2007) warn that the growing tendency to see the PLC as almost de

rigeur is problematic in its own right. Servage (2009) goes further to add that they serve as neo-

liberal sites of micro-management of teacher learning and performance, and Fendler (2006)

warns against the dangerous assumptions of assimilation and heterogeneity within the notion of

community. The PLC debate is clearly polarised by conflicting arguments and further empirical

knowledge is vital to inform practice in this area and generate deeper understanding of the

processes involved in PLCs, and their emergent effects. This study aims to fill that gap.

One example of PLCs in practice is the Learning Round (LR), an observational, collaborative

professional learning activity involving groups of teachers in classroom peer observation. It is

derived from the medical practice of clinical rounds or hospital rounds, and was originally

developed by Harvard Graduate School. It has become influential in the USA as Instructional

Rounds (City et al. 2009). Both instructional and learning rounds are examples of fundamentally

social processes, with emergent social practices, and the effects of their application in education

potentially span a range of other social professions such as the police and medicine. LR is now

being developed in education circles in Scotland across primary, secondary and tertiary sectors.

It has been suggested as a means to "check the progress of Curriculum for Excellence"

(National CPD Team, 2010: 54) and it is gaining currency having enjoyed a healthy endorsement

from educational policy-making bodies in spite of a serious lack of empirical research into the

process, either in its Scottish version or in the Harvard-based original one (Oates and Philpott,

forthcoming).

1

Aims of the study

The study proposed here will examine LR in action. It aims to generate deeper understanding of

both the processes involved in and the emergent effects of the LR model of PLC in the context

of Curriculum for Excellence. It will be guided by the following questions:

what are the key influences on the practices in each LR?

what are the processes involved in each LR?

how does the learning round affect teachers' beliefs about CfE?

how does the learning round change teachers' capacity to engage with CfE?

Context of the study

Education policy in Scotland demonstrates no exception to the global trend for teacher

improvement mentioned above; here also there has been growing emphasis on teacher

professional learning (TPL). A series of policy documents have highlighted the importance of

this as part of the teacher's role (Scottish Executive, 2003; McCormac, 2011; Scottish

Government, 2009, Donaldson, 2011). The recent "Teaching Scotland's Future" review of

teacher education in Scotland positioned teachers as "extended professionals... [and] agents of

change" (Donaldson, 2011: p18), whose professional responsibilities are found in and beyond

the boundaries of their own teaching environments. There is an emphasis on a so-far undefined

notion of professionalism and of TPL as a self-directing process, often encouraged to take place

in collaborative school-based contexts, in organised PLCs (Education Scotland , 2014). This

begs a number of assumptions in need of interrogation in relation to this study including:

How is professionalism understood in relation to professional learning?

What do we know about PLCs and are they always a positive phenomenon?

These themes will now be critically appraised to provide some evidence of a critical review of

relevant literature in the section to follow.

Evidence of critical literature review: professionalism in teaching

Current understandings of professionalism in education are closely associated with

discourses of performance and accountability under the banner of improvement (see for

example Ball, 2003; 2005; Fox and Reeves, 2008; Kennedy et al. 2012; Gleeson and

Husbands, 2004). Professional learning linked to standards is also often associated with

these discourses, (see GTCS, 2013; 2014) but this literature demonstrates that this is rarely

welcomed as a positive development for those professionals involved. Negative

interpretations of the term "professionalism" broadly

speaking present the professional as working in a challenging, threatening and increasingly

regulated and accountability-driven economic environment; as torn between conflicting

discourses of self-management and compliance, individualism and collegiality or professional

development and performance (Gleeson and Gunter 2001). Evetts' (2011) examines

professionalism as occupational or organizational analysis; the former emphasising the values,

knowledge and competencies individuals deploy in relation to their employment and with an

emphasis on:

"ethics collegial authority, mutual support and co-operation" (Evetts, 2011: 8); the latter

foregrounding standardisation, external regulation and accountability and is more

closely associated with management structures.

Carr (1999) included an ethical dimension to his criteria defining professionalism, as well as

expertise which is "theoretically as well as practically grounded," (ibid: 34) but this could be seen

as a slightly naïve, old-fashioned view. For Ball this view belongs to a pre-reform "authentic"

(Ball, 2005: 4) view of professionalism, characterised by moral reflection, dialogue and

uncertainty; the subversion by "technologies of performativity and managerialism" (ibid: 5) has

redefined the concept so that it "perfectly and terrifyingly represents the modernists' quest for

order, transparency and classification" (ibid: 5).

Performance management, the enforcement of professional codes of conduct and the alignment

of practice with standards or indicators for teachers' practice and professional learning could all

be understood as components of both professionalism and performativity. In Scotland the

recent review of teacher employment "Advancing Professionalism in Scotland" (McCormac,

2011) called for a re-invigoration of teachers' terms and conditions. The suggestion in the title

that enhancing a notion of professionalism is the best way to achieve this task is telling and

redolent of discussions above. Kennedy et al. (2012) in their analysis of this report conclude

that there is "a desire to 'advance professionalism', yet no explicit statement of what

professionalism means; a need for creative, innovative and autonomous teachers to fulfil the

aims of Curriculum for Excellence, yet a set of recommendations which support a managerial

approach to teacher professionalism" (Kennedy, Barlow et al. 2012: 12) and that in spite of the

lack of clarity about what professionalism is, it is something teachers need more of or need to

do better.

Donaldson (2011) calls for a new focus on "self-evaluation, reflection and inquiry as powerful

new tools for professional development" (Donaldson, 2011: 96). The need for teachers to

continually improve their practice, individually and collectively in a self-directing way is manifest

in the suite of Professional Standards (GTCS, 2013), and reform of these standards was one

consequence of this report. The new standards place teachers' responsibility for their own

learning in their hands (thus reinforcing the self - management element of the neo-liberal

discourse; see Gleeson and Gunter, 2001) and also tie their professional learning into

Professional Update, the new system of re-registration for teachers in Scotland administered by

the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS, 2014), thus imbuing this version of TPL

with a more accountable, managerialist overtone, closer to Evetts' organizational model (Evetts,

2010). TPL is promoted as a mainstay of this "redefined professionalism" (Donaldson, 2011: 14)

and teachers are clearly seen to be responsible for their own, and others' development as agents

of change. A frequently cited response as to how this "enhanced professional" may be

developed is by the means of school-based, collaborative PLCs (Donaldson, 2011; Education

Scotland, 2014), and these will be examined in the next section of this report.

Problematising Professional Learning Communities

The debate in the literature on PLCs is largely polarised: in this section I will consider the

conflicting discourses around PLC practice as it is presented in some of this literature and

explore some of the assumptions underpinning it.

There is general consensus in the literature examined here that the term professional learning

community was derived and migrated into the field of education from that of business having

roots in the idea of a "learning organisation."(Nehring and Fitzsimons, 2011; Stoll et al. 2006;

Vescio et al., 2008). This is a highly contestable etymology for Watson who sees the term as

conflicting, contradictory and ambiguous, begging the question "who or what learns?" (Watson,

2012: 2). The processes and mechanisms at work in the PLC provide fertile ground for research

as some of this critique attempts to highlight.

PLCs are generally understood as being based on a form of collaborative CPD (or professional

learning PL as it is often referred to in Scotland, post Donaldson, 2011) which consists of

groups of professionals jointly engaged in a shared activity focusing on one or several problems

of practice. In some of the references to follow notably Stoll et al (2005) and Bolam et al

(2006), CPD is the preferred term so this is the term I will use in discussion of these

papers. Collaborative CPD is the shared activity undertaken by professionals working

together in contexts such as PLCs as described above. Cordingley et al (2003) define

collaborative CPD in straightforward terms as teachers working with at least one other related

professional on a sustained basis. Bolam et al. (2005) and Stoll et al. (2006: 223) developed and

defined PLCs as:

"a given group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing,

reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting way" ( Bolam et al.

2005: 229).

The cultural and relational dynamic is emphasised in Louis who sees the PLC as:

"a set of dynamic relationships embedded in a supportive school culture" (Louis, 2009: 13) and

the widening of learning parameters from individual to collective forms is also a feature of the

definitions offered by the authors above.

Assumptions are underpinning these definitions: there is commonality across all of soft-focus

terms such as collaboration, reflection, supportive, learning-orientated etc. and little is offered

by the way of further explanation, thus leaving us with a list of what Watson describes as

"contestable concepts" (Watson, 2012: 2) which are open to interpretation and so non-specific that

they are at best, unhelpful or at worst, meaningless.

Common principles

In the absence of a (so far) satisfactory answer to the question "what are PLCs?" much of the

literature quickly moves from attempts to offer a definition of the term to listing key

characteristics of what a PLC should have. Bolam, McMahon et al (2005: 5) propose a much

cited and also uncontested comprehensive summary set of eight key characteristics exhibited by

effective PLCs:

shared values and vision;

collective responsibility for pupils' learning;

collaboration focused on learning;

individual and collective professional learning;

reflective professional enquiry;

openness, networks and partnerships;

inclusive membership;

mutual trust, respect and

support.

These notions are also reflected in Louis (2009) who exposes no small degree of positive bias

towards PLC by subsequently claiming that "for most teachers this sounds like heaven on

earth" (ibid: 2) and reinforces her enthusiasm with empirical claims of links between PLCs and

student improvement. Dufour (2008) identifies "big ideas" which distil these criteria into a

focus on student learning; a culture of collaboration and attention to results. Although Dufour

warns against the misappropriation of these terms (confusing collaboration with congeniality,

for example) this list is no less contestable than what we have seen before, although the claims

made on the strength of its argument echo those of Louis and are significant:

"The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic

process in which teachers work together to analyse and improve their classroom practice.

Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team

learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher levels of student achievement. "

(Dufour, 2008: 3).

The correlation between collaborative practices as exemplified by PLCs and student

achievement would appear here to be a unanimously positive one. This grossly oversimplifies a

complex, multi-faceted phenomenon and ignores contextual influences like for example, cultural

or material conditions.

Hargreaves (2012) sets out his own guiding principles in this regard, of:

".1. Communities. Where educators work in continuing groups and relationships. [and are]

committed to improving their practice with regard to that purpose.

2. Learning Communities. Where improvement is driven by a commitment to improving

students' learning, well-being and achievement

3. Professional learning communities. Where collaborative improvements..are informed

by but not dependent on scientific and statistical evidence, where they are guided by

experienced collective judgment.challenging conversations about effective and

ineffective practice." (ibid: 128)

Mainly broad terms are offered here; additionally, incremental elaboration of each term from

one through to three seems to be absent - we are still left pondering the detailed working of the

transactional relationships upon which this understanding of PLCs is based. However,

Hargreaves does not suggest a universal appeal towards vague notions of collaborative practice

but instead warns against the regulated enforcement of it in what he calls "contrived collegiality"

(Hargreaves, 2012: 118). He develops this idea in earlier literature in his comparison between

PLC and "performance sects." Hargreaves has summarised and contrasted qualities pertaining

to each as follows:

(Hargreaves, 2003: 185). This highlights the difference in broad-brush principles of two

contrasting approaches which Hargreaves suggests often get confused, but again, little is offered

to describe the processes whereby the more preferable and less performative attributes might be

achieved.

In their review of the literature on PLCs Stoll et al (2006) observe that research in this area in

the UK is a twenty first century phenomenon, perhaps reflecting a need for new approaches to

organisational behaviour in response to accelerating rates of change in the increasingly

globalised society. In support of this, Jackson and Temperley (2007) emphasise the need to

recognise today's society as one which is knowledge-rich and networked, bringing a greater

requirement to make tangible the connections between areas of knowledge and practice relating

to it than before. Understanding of professional collaborative practice might consequently be

seen as a distinguishing or a desirable characteristic of the twenty-first century educator.

While this may be true, it is not being proposed as a justification for PLCs or collaborative

practice per se, however. The ubiquity of the terms has seen them in recent years become part

of the everyday lexicon of educators in Scotland and beyond. In addition, PLCs or practitioner

networks are becoming increasingly common across the teaching profession to the extent that

they are sometimes accepted uncritically as beneficial for practitioners, and used as terms to

describe almost any work-related activity involving groups of educators (Trotman, 2009; City et

al. 2009; Fullan, 2007; Fullan and Hargreaves 2012) and indeed the growth of some educational

commercial enterprises who support and promote such practice has been significant.

Generally within the literature there is little room for the possibility of a PLC being a negative

phenomenon. From a critical perspective some unchallenged assumptions which seem to be

widely accepted in much of the literature are in need of greater interrogation, and some less

positive influences, as in for example external perspectives as sources of dissonance, are largely

missing.

Watson's (2012) critique of some of the concepts at work inside the PLC highlights some

tensions at play. Openness and shared vision and values; norms of practice and responsibility

for student learning are frequently cited as characteristic features of PLCs (Allen 2013; Bolham

et al 2005 Hord 1997; Louis 2009; Nehring, 2011; Stoll et al 2006; Elmore, 2008 )Watson's

critical interpretation of these presents the "cosy concept" (Watson, 2012: 5) of openness not as an

antidote to isolationism as it is often presented in the literature, but as a form of surveillance

and control. Sharing, another of the "warm fuzzies" (Nehring and Fitzsimons, 2011) in the

discourse of PLCs becomes a controlling homogeniser; flattening out difference and silencing

dissonant voices; directing discourses around pedagogies into" very particular meanings"

(Watson, 2012: 5).

Paradoxes resulting from an uncritical approach to PLCs are laid bare here: Watson contends

that in terms of values, openness (as discussed above) can lead to surveillance; that shared vision

can create a direction of travel which suppresses change and that enforced cohesion can lead to

isolation. In spite of the inclusive appeal, there is a danger that the PLC can result in exclusivity

or alienation.

Fendler (2006) challenges the concept of community on the basis of social justice and outlines,

like Watson, various ways in which the concept of community in educational research and

practice operate to exclude. She observes:

"[The PLC] appears to be an inclusive middle ground, so its mechanisms of exclusion,

censorship, and normalization are not readily available for critique" (Fendler, 2006:

309).The challenge here is that the notion of collaborative practice is inherently and

unquestioningly

positive - why would you question them or why wouldn't a practitioner want to belong to one?

But she goes on to suggest that the impulses towards assimilation and heterogeneity are

inherently exclusive: Fendler draws on Gee (2000) to illustrate how communities conceptualised

in this way can be used as sites of "tacit indoctrination" (p519) to informally enforce certain

ideas and marginalise others. She also cites Rose (1999) who supports this view of PLCs as sites

of enforcement or governance, whilst simultaneously invoking an informal, teacher-friendly

appeal.

Fendler shows how the frequent appeal of solidarity in community is prevalent but hides an

underlying contradiction, as the existence of a community in the very fact of including some

maintains power relations which reinforce deficiencies of those excluded. Those on the outside

of the community may find themselves subject to interventions decided by the community (as

happens in many educational practices such as LR or other collaborative observational

practices). Those on the inside are not considered deficient. Fendler sees this as a reinforcement

of hierarchies of power whereby the status of both those included and those excluded is

established and maintained.

Servage (2009) observes that sloganising statements which masquerade as policy (the examples

she quotes are "learning for all" and "all children succeed" (ibid: 158) and are recognisable in

similar UK/Scottish versions) are often assigned to PLCs as a focus for their work, thus

generating cynicism if the PLC is seen in this way to be a vehicle for

"contradictory.technocratic standards driven outcomes" (ibid: 159) and the teachers who are within it are

seen as the drivers of this change.

Servage warns against PLCs accepting the managerialist gauntlet as this not only generates

cynicism and dilutes the potential of rich collaborative learning, but will also limit the work of

the PLC to constraining practices of implementation, audit, assessment, reporting or

"pedagogical best practice" (ibid: 164).

Some commonalities and problems have been identified within this body of literature examined

so far, but one significant feature is the a-theoretical nature of most of the empirical studies

concerned with this field. Additionally, the majority of the literature is North-American, and I

could make attempts to explain both these phenomena here, but they would be speculative. For

the purposes of my study and in light of:

the apparent lack of theory in empirical studies of PLCs;

the apparent lack of attention to the processes involved in

PLCs;

and indeed the lack of any study of LR,

I will now consider the theoretical framework which will guide this study.

Social theory

Archer's social theory of structure and agency (2000) which is rooted in critical realism, has

offered an enduring and robust epistemology for social science research. (Collier 1995; Elder-

Vass, 2010; 2012) In the field of education, Priestley (2011a; 2011b) and Priestley and Wallace

(2011) have used this social theory to explore structural, cultural and material conditions that

shape the relational role of teachers in processes of change. It is of particular significance when

analysing processes played out in social groups as "it does not privilege the individual over

society or vice versa" (Priestley, 2011b: 12); rather it allows a consideration of the combined

causal effects of individuals, culture and structures within social interactions. It also illuminates

how these interactions are mediated by individuals and the agentic properties which may result

from this for individuals, thus allowing further change to occur. In this particular understanding

of structure Elder-Vass's definition is helpful as he goes beyond the more commonplace

understanding of structure as institution to structure as "whole with causal power - the

normative community concerned" (Elder Vass, 2007: 465). Causal power within social, material or

cultural structures is also referred to in critical realist terms as emergence. Emergence is a key

concept in critical realism and is relevant to this study. It is the power attributed to entities

which are not possessed by the individual components within that entity. Thus, for example, a

group of individuals, acting within an existing structure, influenced by cultural norms, ideas and

values can interact within and with that structure. The collective interactions result in the

emergence of different causal powers which can influence or change all entities concerned.

Archer's theory of analytical dualism (Archer, 1995) conceives these changes as social

transformations and reproductions which occur in morphogenetic/morphostatic cycles,

addressing the different elements of social interaction as detailed above. This theory offers

much potential in developing understanding of the social processes in PLCs. It can underpin the

analysis of social interactions within a structure such as a PLC or LR. It can also help to identify

any cultural, structural or personal changes that might be attributed to these interactions. In

doing so, the study will offer a critique of the to-date poorly researched and analysed practices

of LR. It will investigate whether or not this model offers a relevant, effective model of

collaborative, professional learning.

Methodology

In this study two instances of a LR will be researched, inductively building an intrinsic case study

as this leads to a "better understanding of this particular case" (Stake, 2005: 445). Case study

methodology applies a focus on that which is specific, unique and bounded (Stake, 2005); events

such as LR taking place within individual structures such as school, with their inherent and

individual

cultural conditions lend themselves to this methodology. Boundedness is a property which is

difficult to achieve in circumstances involving humans in interaction. To paraphrase Stake

(1988, in Stake 2005) it is hard to say where the teacher ends and the environment begins. As

systems which are open to both internal and external influences, any boundaries drawn around

each school establishment are essentially arbitrary, and it is important to acknowledge this.

However, the theoretical framework underpinning this study can mitigate this as it allows for a

detailed investigation of structural, cultural, and material influences at play in the interactions

within the case. Structural, cultural, and material conditions will be mapped and analysed in

alignment with Archer's social theory as outlined above. The three layered depth ontology of

critical realism offers a means of examining the underlying dynamics at play which can be

effectively invisible to the casual observer (Elder Vass 2007; 2012: Scott and Usher, 2011). These

refer to the empirical ( which is observable) the actual ( events or entities which may not always ne

observable) and the real ( the underlying mechanisms which shape surface events). Thus,

empirical events such as the social interactions at the heart of this study are always understood

as having deeper causative influences which can be identified and investigated.

This methodology provides a way to highlight social relationships within change processes and

allows them to be examined by separating structure and culture from the individuals/groups

taking part. In this way, the influence of external ideas as new cultural forms and their mediation

by groups and individuals in each setting can also be studied. In summary, it potentially

advances a model for examining the role of relationships in change processes, whether they act

to transform or preserve existing cultures and structures.

Methods, sample and analysis

The research will be undertaken in two schools involved in LR. These schools will be identified

prior to the beginning of academic session 2014-15. Contact with a wide national professional

network of colleagues including school leaders allows me awareness of which schools may be

interested in engaging with this process at a time which will be convenient for me as the

researcher, and the ability to act upon this information when it comes to light. Once the schools

have been identified they will be briefed about the study and relevant documentation (e.g.

rationale for learning rounds; policy context; school improvement plan; local authority

professional learning plan) will be gathered to enable me to establish an understanding of the

structural and cultural conditions of the LR . Observations of aspects of the process in action

will be made and LR group discussions will be recorded. The observations will generate data

about practice as seen

by an observer and not as representing what the participants say they are doing, and the group

discussions will provide an insight into key moments of the LR process: i.e. the post observation

discussion; the planning for change stage. Scene setting interviews for participants will give some

background to the project and a minimum of four participants in each school setting will be

selected for interview. Interviews based on observed incidents among other themes will

generate richer data about individual participating teachers' interactions, practices,

understandings about the LR process; what they believe they learn from it and what effects

these may have upon their practice. This will involve at least two participating classroom

teachers and one member of the leadership team. The interviews will be carried at two intervals

over the course of the project in order to give an indication of any changes or developments at

individual or structural/cultural level over time. This will provide a minimum of sixteen

interviews over the course of the project for each school setting.

The data will analysed in two stages; firstly using open interpretive coding to identify emergent

categories and themes and secondly using Archer's model of analytical dualism for further

refinement and more substantive theoretical analysis. I have undergone Nvivo training and may

possibly use this to help organise and analyse data.

Variance from initial plan

This study is more a refinement of, rather than a variant of the initial project I submitted in

December 2012. The research focus has been honed over the last year from a wider emphasis

on LR as a model of professional learning and any associated improvement in practice that may

or may not be gained by it, to a sharper and deeper proposed analysis of the transactions and

processes taking place within them. The study has also moved from a mixed method to a

qualitative paradigm; the initial study proposed gathering quantitative baseline survey to

establish broad understandings of the purpose and effectiveness of LR - in light of the sharper

focus on process this is no longer relevant. There may yet be changes which emerge as the study

gets underway but its aim, to generate deeper understanding of both the processes involved in,

and the emergent effects of the LR model of PLC, should hold fast.

Ethical issues

Ethical considerations have been at the forefront of this study design. It will work within

BERA's ethics code and is fully compliant with BERA's ethics framework. Approval has already

been granted by the Stirling School of Education Research Committee. Participation in the

study at any level is voluntary, and the right to withdraw will be made clear. The participant

teachers are not considered as a vulnerable group but their rights to anonymity must be

preserved. While absolute anonymity is difficult to achieve, maximum steps will be taken in the

reporting of findings to minimise the possibility of identification: identities of all individuals

and organisations will be protected using pseudonyms for people and place and contentious

findings will be reported sensitively. All data will be treated as confidential but some will be

shared with supervisors. Digital data will be kept securely on an encrypted device, and not made

available to third parties. Physical data will be stored in a locked cupboard. Participants will be

kept informed of developments during the project and invited to regular briefings and update

sessions/ project newsletters.

Significance, originality and impact

This study will make a significant contribution to the field of educator professional learning and

in particular to the practice of LRs for which little research evidence presently exists. The roots

of LR as Instructional Rounds in the US medical profession is presented as a strength (City et al.

2009); however, this is not unproblematic, given contextual differences and untested

assumptions that practices can be successfully translated across social professions. An

international literature review into the practice by Oates and Philpott (forthcoming) found very

little evidence that can be scrutinised by international readers on the efficacy of LR's parent -

practice of Instructional Rounds as a form of professional development, school improvement

and system improvement. This research offers an original empirical contribution to this debate.

Further significance and originality lies in the application of Archer's (1995) social theory,

currently little-used in educational research, to this field of study. Via my established

professional and academic networks, both formal and informal, in Scotland and further afield

dissemination of the research will provide opportunities for policymakers and practitioners to

inform future policy and practice.

Future plans and timetable: please see below.

13

Provisional PhD timeline

Textual analysis and scoping of literature Literature Review Theory investigation

Training in methodology/coding analysis

of

data Ethical approval 15 month review

Pilot selected methods - interviews

Year 1

2013

2 Jan-

June201

4

2 Jul-

Dec

2014

Aug 2014

Year 3

2015 Year 4

2016

Refinement of research methods based on pilot Identify two case study schools: setting up of

study Observation Interview 1 Observation 1 Group interview 1 Initial analysis of data 1 Interview 2 Observation 2 Group interview 2 More indepth analysis of data 2 Interview 3 Observation 3 Group interview 3 analysis of cumulated data 3

14

In-depth analysis and write up

Revisit and update literature Submit 1st draft of thesis Redrafting, resubmission and Viva Dissemination; publications, conferences

15

References

ALLEN, D. (2013). Reconstructing professional learning community as collective

creation. Improving Schools, 16(3), pp. 191. ARCHER, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

ARCHER, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

BALL, S.J. (2005). The SERA lecture 2004: Education reform as social barberism: economism

and the end of authenticity1. Scottish Educational Review, 37(1), pp. 4-16.

BALL, S.J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education

policy, 18(2), pp. 215-228.

BOLAM, R., MCMAHON, A., STOLL, L., THOMAS, S., WALLACE, M., GREENWOOD,

A., HAWKEY, K., INGRAM, M., ATKINSON, A., and SMITH. M..( 2005). Creating and

sustaining effective professional learning communities. Research report 637: London. DfES and

University of Bristol

CITY, E.A., ELMORE, R.F., FIARMAN, S.E. and TEITEL, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in

education. Cambridge, MA. Harvard Education Press

CORDINGLEY, P., BELL, M., THOMASON, S. and FIRTH, A. (2005). The impact of

collaborative continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and

learning. Review: How do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect

teaching and learning,

COLLIER (2013) Critical realism: Essential readings. In Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A.,

Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. Eds. Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Routledge p258 -252

DONALDSON, G. (2011). Teaching Scotland's future: Report of a review of teacher education in

Scotland. Scottish Government

DUFOUR, R. (2004). "What is a" professional learning community"?" Educational leadership 61.8:

1-6. Available at: http://bit.ly/1bLfleB Accessed 12th November 2014

EDUCATION SCOTLAND Professional Learning (2014 -last update).

Available: https://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/professionall

earning/index.asp Accessed 3rd March 2014

EDWARDS, F. (2012). Learning communities for curriculum change: key factors in an

educational change process in New Zealand. Professional Development in Education, 38(1), pp. 25-47.

ELMORE, R.F.(2008). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice and Performance. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard Education Press.

16

EVETTS, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current

Sociology, 59(4), pp. 406-422.

ELDER -VASS, D. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

ELDER-VASS, D. (2010). The Causal Power of Social Structures, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

ELDER-VASS, D. (2007) 'Social structure and social relations'. Journal for the Theory of Social

Behaviour, 37:4, 463-77.

FENDLER, L. (2006). Others and the problem of community. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(3), pp.

303-326.

FOX, A. and REEVES, J. (2008). Teacher Professionalism in Scotland Post-Devolution. In: A.

FOX and J. REEVES, eds, Practice Based Learning: Developing Excellence in Teaching. Policy

& Practice in Education. 24 edn. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press Ltd, pp. 1-12. FULLAN, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge.

GEE, J. P. (2000). Communities of practice in the new capitalism. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 9(4), 515-523

GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL OF SCOTLAND, Professional Update.

Available: http://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-update/professional-update.aspx Accessed

23rd Feb 2014.

GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL SCOTLAND, 2013-last update, The Standards.

Available: http://www.gtcs.org.uk/standards/standards.aspx Accessed 11th Aug 2014. GLEESON, D. and HUSBANDS, C. (2004). The performing school. London: Routledge GLEESON, D. and GUNTER, H. (2001) The Performing School. London: Routledge Falmer

HARGREAVES, A. (2003). Professional learning communities and performance training sects. in Harris

et al., eds: Effective leadership for school improvement. London: Routledge Farmer pp. 180-

195.

HARGREAVES, A. and FULLAN, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every

school. New York: Teachers College Press.

HARRIS, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of

Educational Administration, 49(6), pp. 624-636.

HORD, S.M. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous inquiry and

improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

KENNEDY, A., BARLOW, W. and MACGREGOR J. (2012). 'Advancing Professionalism in

Teaching'? An exploration of the mobilisation of the concept of professionalism in the

17

McCormac Report on the Review of Teacher Employment in Scotland. Scottish Educational

Review, 44(2), pp. 3-13.

LOUIS, K.S. (2009). Creating and sustaining professional communities. In: Blankstein, A. M.,

Houston, P. D., & Cole, R. W. (Eds.). (2009). Building sustainable leadership capacity (Vol. 5). SAGE.

MCCORMAC, G. (2011). Advancing Professionalism in Teaching: the report of the review of teacher

employment in Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

NATIONAL CPD TEAM (2010) The Learning Rounds Toolkit; Building a Learning Community.

Available at: http://bit.ly/LRToolkit Accessed 12th August 2014

NEHRING, J. and Fitzsimons, G. (2011). The professional learning community as subversive

activity: countering the culture of conventional schooling. Professional Development in

Education, 37(4), pp. 513.

PRIESTLEY, M. (2011a). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of

Educational Change, 12(1), pp. 1-23.

PRIESTLEY, M. (2011b). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and

curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), pp. 221-237. ROSE, N. (2000). Community, citizenship, and the third way. The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9), 1395-1411.

SCOTT, D.and USHER, R. (1996) eds. Understanding educational research. Psychology Press.

SCOTTISH EXCUTIVE. (2003) Continuing Professional Development for Educational Leaders.

Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/01/18713/31241 Accessed 11th August 2014

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. (2009) Schools of Ambition: leading change. Available at

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/04/30095118/0 Accessed 11th August 2014

SERVAGE, L. (2009). Who is the "professional" in a professional learning community? An

exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional development

settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1), pp. 149-171.

STAKE, R (2005) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin and Lincoln, eds. The Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Research. London:Sage pp 443-466

STOLL, L. and LOUIS, K.S., (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and

dilemmas. Maidenhead and New York: McGraw-Hill International

18

STOLL, L., BOLAM, R., MCMAHON, A., WALLACE, M. and THOMAS, S., (2006).

Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational

Change, 7(4), pp. 221-258.

TROTMAN, D. (2009). Networking for educational change: Concepts, impediments and

opportunities for primary school professional learning communities. Professional development in

education, 35(3), pp. 341-356.

VESCIO, V., ROSS, D. and ADAMS, A., (2008). A review of research on the impact of

professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher

education, 24(1), pp. 80-91.

WALLACE, C.S. and PRIESTLEY, M., (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of

curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio‐cultural perspective on professional development

and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), pp. 357-381.

WATSON, C (2012) Effective professional learning communities: The possibilities fr teachers as

agents of change in schools. British Educational Research Journal DOI: 10.1002/berj.3025

19