This article was downloaded by: [University of Leicester]On: 17 September 2013, At: 07:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teachers and Teaching: Theory andPracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Professional learning during aschools–university partnership Masterof Education course: teachers’perspectives of their learningexperiencesRuth Kershner a , David Pedder b & Christine Doddington aa Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKb School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester, UKPublished online: 20 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Ruth Kershner , David Pedder & Christine Doddington (2013) Professionallearning during a schools–university partnership Master of Education course: teachers’ perspectivesof their learning experiences, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19:1, 33-49, DOI:10.1080/13540602.2013.744197

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744197

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Professional learning during a schools–university partnershipmaster of education course: teachers’ perspectives of theirlearning experiences

Ruth Kershnera*, David Pedderb and Christine Doddingtona

aFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; bSchool of Education,University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

(Received 14 June 2011; final version received 14 December 2011)

An extensive body of research has indicated the benefits of collaborative,contextualised and enquiry-based learning for teachers’ professional developmentand school improvement. Yet professional learning is also known to be con-strained by a number of factors, including the organisational limitations ofschools, conflicting cultural practices and wider political demands. Schools–university partnerships have been developed to overcome some of these difficul-ties by transcending particular school contexts and offering alternative theoreticaland practical perspectives. The complex combination of motivations, back-grounds and working contexts in such partnership work calls for attention to theindividual and collective learning experiences of those involved, including theways in which school and university contexts are, or could be, effectivelybridged. This paper focuses on understanding the learning experienced by acohort of teachers and school leaders involved in a two-year schools–universitypartnership Master of Education (M.Ed.) course in England. A mixed group of 15experienced primary and secondary teachers and school leaders reflected on theirlearning at five points of time during and shortly after completing their M.Ed.course. Qualitative analysis of the group’s interview responses and reflective writ-ing led to the identification of six related aspects of personal and professionallearning experience: being a learner; learning as part of professional practice; wid-ening repertoire; changing as a learner; personal growth; and critically adaptivepractice. The identification and visual representation of these aspects of experi-ence emerging within the group offers useful insight into teachers’ perspectiveson learning in school and university contexts and their experiences of progressionover time. We conclude that more explicit and central attention to the professionaland personal learning elements of schools–university partnerships can help toresolve some of the binary ‘theory–practice’ tensions that have been extensivelydiscussed in relation to partnership programmes and teacher professional develop-ment. There is a need to acknowledge variation in teachers’ learning experienceswithin schools–university partnerships, bearing in mind the ongoing nature of thisreflective process with each new group of school and university colleagues. Anal-ysis of participants’ learning experiences in school and university contexts alsodraws attention to the wider structures, values and cultures that influence, and areinfluenced by, schools–university partnership work.

Keywords: Masters study; professional learning; schools–university partnership;teacher learning; theory and practice

*Corresponding author. Email: rsk21@cam.ac.uk

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2013Vol. 19, No. 1, 33–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744197

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Introduction

This paper focuses on understanding the learning experiences of a mixed group ofprimary and secondary school teachers and leaders who participated in a two-yearpart-time schools–university partnership Masters course in the East of Englandbetween 2007 and 2009. Our research draws on a series of reflective activities under-taken with the course participants, using a combination of methods to produceaccounts and representations of learning from different angles and viewpoints.

The professional context

The Essex schools–university partnership with the University of Cambridge Facultyof Education, founded in 1999, led to the establishment of a Master of Education(M.Ed.) course for experienced teachers, school leaders and advisers entitled‘School Improvement for All’. This was one of a range of faculty partnerships inthe same time period, including other masters collaborations and an extensive pro-gramme in initial teacher education and continuing professional development acrossthe region.

The Essex partnership aimed to open up collaborative learning opportunities forschool and university teachers, with a commitment to enhancing the conditions andquality of pupils’ learning through professional development and inclusive pro-cesses of school improvement. A unifying vision was the notion of the ‘research-engaged school’ (Handscomb & MacBeath, 2003). Expectations extended beyondthe individual learning of participating course members to include some form ofimpact on school practice or policy, such as organisational problem-solving, schoolself-evaluation and commitment to ongoing enquiry-based school development.Teachers enrolled with this wider commitment in mind, with the explicit support oftheir schools and local authority (LA) for this approach to professional and organi-sational development. In the university context, partnership work was increasinglycentral to the Faculty’s role. It provided opportunities for academic staff to work,and learn, with practitioner colleagues in school, and for colleagues within the Fac-ulty to collaborate across neighbouring fields of study such as leadership, inclusionand psychology of education.

Teachers’ M.Ed. research projects were conceived in relation to their profes-sional interests and concerns, and the course was designed to support them in artic-ulating and investigating their research questions. A key principle was to supportteachers’ collaborative knowledge-sharing, learning and critical thinking bydeveloping mutual trust and understanding in talking about school and classroompractice. Sessions were designed, often with team teaching, to allow ample time forteachers to exchange personal examples and stories and, in doing so, puzzle throughproblems of practice with each other and members of the Faculty tutor team.

The wider national context of this work in the last decade includes the promo-tion of teaching as a Masters level profession in England from initial trainingonwards. Individual teachers had been independently taking Masters degrees formany years, but the 2000s saw a proliferation of opportunities for experiencedteachers to gain a Masters qualification in the context of their professional contribu-tion to school improvement. This commonly involved local partnership Masterswork involving universities in collaboration with LAs and/or schools, individuallyor in clusters.

34 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

At the time of writing in 2011, however, the position in England is not securewith regard to the requirements and support for teachers’ individual and collectiveMasters study. Specific initiatives in England like the school-based Masters inTeaching and Learning have been significantly affected by policy changes in educa-tion and financial constraints under the government that came to power in 2010(Burton & Goodman, 2011). Professional learning can be fundamentally stifledwhen external requirements for assessment, curriculum and pedagogy set limits oninnovatory practice at school level (Alexander, 2010). Teachers’ professional learn-ing in partnership Masters courses therefore needs to be understood and evaluatedin a climate of competing school priorities, external requirements for accountabilityand national financial pressures.

The research context

Teachers’ professional learning: collaboration, contextualisation and enquiry

The partnership assumptions about fostering teachers’ collaborative and research-oriented learning have their roots in the research literature. A great deal of researchevidence suggests that the effectiveness of professional development is enhancedwhen teachers learn collaboratively (e.g. Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009; Vescio,Ross, & Adams, 2008) and in contexts of classroom practice (e.g. Horn & Little,2010). There has long been interest in the importance of practice-focused researchand experimentation for teachers’ professional learning and development (e.g.Elliott, 1991).

Developing strategies for scaling up collaborative, classroom-based,research-informed professional development is seen as a vital condition for schoolimprovement through its positive influence on teachers’ classroom practices andtheir students’ learning (Day & Leitch, 2007). Building such learning into teachers’normal professional practices, however, involves overcoming a number of chal-lenges. Teachers’ tacit knowledge is often well adapted to the distinctive, complexcontexts of the classrooms in which they teach, but much of this expertise is noteasily rendered explicit (Eraut, 2000; McIntyre, 2000). Sharing knowledge with col-leagues requires effort, prompted by clear needs and purposes in school. Collabora-tive work can be a difficult ‘messy’ business, requiring attention to multiple,alternative perspectives, contrasting discourses, micro-political processes andcontradictions within a school system (Adamson & Walker, 2011; Sannino, 2010;Skidmore, 2004). One aim of partnership work is to strengthen teachers’contribution to collaborative learning through a deeper critical understanding ofalternative views in their own and other contexts.

Partnership approaches to professional learning

Teachers’ participation in school-to-school and school–university networks and part-nerships has been found to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in schoolsand classrooms through enabling teachers to engage with an expanded pool ofideas, resources and sources of support, increased opportunities for mutual problem-solving, knowledge creation and transfer, and a heightened sense of professionalachievement and accomplishment (e.g. Little & Veugelers, 2005; Stoll & SeashoreLouis, 2007; West, 2010).

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Schools–university partnerships established as research networks commonlydraw on principles of practitioner research, reflective practice and collaborativeenquiry as sources of professional learning, knowledge-building and schoolimprovement (McLaughlin, Black-Hawkins, McIntyre, & Townsend, 2008). Theaim is to bring together the expertise of university and school staff in order toaddress concrete, local professional challenges, accompanied in many cases by uni-versity accreditation for the teachers involved. In principle, both school anduniversity staff can derive significant benefits through participating in suchpartnerships. Yet, as Baumfield and Butterworth (2007) remark with regard to theirretrospective review of a range of schools–university research partnerships, theparties involved do not always find mutual and equitable benefit in the collabora-tion. It is, and needs to be, a learning process for all involved.

Understanding learning in schools–university partnerships: connecting theoryand practice?

The connection of theory, research and practice is central to schools–university part-nerships. School teachers and leaders may appear to employ certain forms ofknowledge for action in day-to-day practice without simultaneous and consciousapplication of educational theory. Yet most are inspired and influenced by othersources of knowledge and learning. As Hall (2009, p. 672) remarks, this can be apractical necessity given the tension between ‘… privileging their contextual exper-tise and the risk of re-inventing the wheel’.

For most teachers, there is a non-linear development of ‘practical wisdom’, the-ory and experience which come together over time in day-to-day school practice(Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2009, p. 229). A central aspect of this learning is to dowith the shifting ways in which different ‘knowledge worlds’ are experienced. Untilrecently a full understanding of the conditions for teachers’ learning in educationalcontexts has been hindered by an extensive but diverse field of study with compet-ing individual, social and contextual perspectives on how teachers learn (Hoban,2002). There are sensory, motivational, emotional, cognitive and social aspects ofthe processes by which people’s thinking and behaviour changes over time. Thesederive from contextual and personal factors elicited in varied and unpredictableways from particular situations (Korthagen, 2010; Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop,2007). Teachers may change from seeing academic study, for instance, as a distant,irrelevant and difficult process carried out in universities to a fully integrated aspectof collective professional activity in school. This is an empirical question relevantto our own study and schools–university partnerships in general.

The research study

Research questions

Our initial research question was exploratory: What types of M.Ed. learning experi-ence are expressed by this group of teachers over time? As the course continued,we focused on the ways in which course members developed and integrated theirM.Ed. learning experiences in school and university contexts, both in personalterms and in relation to their professional roles and practice. In doing this we capi-talised on the reflective thinking of what turned out to be a highly engaged M.Ed.cohort in order to gain insight into the variety of learning experience that may

36 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

emerge in such a context. Given the small and diverse sample, and the developmen-tal and embedded nature of the research process, our intention is not to draw firmconclusions about the likely learning of particular groups of teachers or leaders inthis type of programme. The approach offers a conceptual framework for reflectionand a tool for further exploration of participants learning experiences in schools–university partnership work and consideration of further implications.

Participants

The study involved one M.Ed. cohort of 15 teachers, including four primary head-teachers, four primary teachers, three secondary teachers in the senior leadershipteam, three secondary subject teachers, and one LA advisory teacher. Professionalexperience ranged from recent qualification to approaching retirement, covering avariety of educational contexts in England and abroad.

The core M.Ed. tutor team brought together five colleagues from different aca-demic groups in the Faculty, representing varying interests in leadership, schoolimprovement, psychology of learning, inclusion, philosophy of education and thegeneral practices of teaching and learning. All had previous teaching experience inprimary or secondary schools.

Data Collection

The research comprised a longitudinal qualitative investigation undertaken between2007 and 2010 with analysis continuing throughout 2010 and 2011. During andshortly after the M.Ed. course, the teachers were regularly asked to reflect on theirlearning in interview, discussion and writing, as is common in many Mastersprogrammes. The teachers developed their own research as the course continued, car-rying out a project in the second year to be written up in a 20,000 word M.Ed. thesis.

We identified five key points of reflection:

(1) September 2007: a short written account of ‘myself as a learner’;(2) December 2007/January 2008: a semi-structured ‘individual professional

learning interview’ (IPLI);(3) September 2008: review and annotation of IPLI ‘with one of the tutor team’

transcripts;(4) June 2009: further written reflections on ‘myself as a learner’ and on addi-

tional questions about professional development and impact on school policyand practice;

(5) February 2010: final written reflections on M.Ed. learning experience includ-ing some elicited metaphorical representations. (Note that this occurred afterthe completion of the M.Ed. course.)

The course was designed to support the group’s reflective discussions,interpreting and incorporating academic sources and personal examples as thecourse continued. The taught topics (see Appendix 1) drew explicit attention toideas about learning, research and school development processes from the start andthe reflective activities tapped into these. This input ran alongside participants’engagement in their own school-based enquiries on a range of topics, so a widerange of material was available to support group discussions and reflections.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Teachers had the option throughout of not taking part in specific activities ornot sharing their thinking, and individuals did opt out on occasions either throughpersonal choice or for practical reasons of attendance on a given occasion. This is areflection of the way in which the research was embedded and grown in theMasters course context, led by developing collegial relationships and negotiations.However, as course tutors we retained responsibility for guiding the formalsubmission of written course assignments to meet the Masters assessment criteria.This coursework, though richly reflective and illuminating, is not included here asresearch data due to its specific nature and purpose at the time.

Much of the data in this study can be understood as ‘naturally occurring’ in thecontext of the M.Ed. course. This is a position that may have both strengths andweaknesses, as highlighted by Fox, White, and Kidd (2011) in their analysis ofteachers’ reflective portfolios on a Master’s programme in the USA. In our experi-ence, the course contextualisation is a potential strength in the engagement, detailand specificity it offers. It has long been recognised by qualitative researchers,however, that ‘… all data are mediated by our own reasoning as well as that ofparticipants’ (Silverman, 2006, p. 380). The teachers’ expressed views and our owninterpretations should be acknowledged as ways of interpreting and portrayinglearning experience through the systematic analysis of written and spoken records,influenced in turn by our own interests and perspectives.

Data analysis

The analytical approach draws on original principles of phenomenography (Marton& Booth, 1997), aiming to capture variation of experience within a given group ofpeople by analysing interviews, written documents and other texts in which personalexperiences are articulated. The assumption is that teachers’ various experiences ofMasters learning can be described in a way that is relevant to the group concerned(constrained to some extent by the nature of each person’s awareness and how this isexpressed). The intention is not to categorise individuals or make claims for typical-ity or value. What is sought is a meaningful representation of significant differenceswithin a given group’s experiences as well as any common ground. This representa-tion could in turn have value for further discussion and development.

We wanted to capture key aspects of the teachers’ learning experiences in acoherent and parsimonious way. This took several cycles of coding, discussion, re-naming and returning to the data, which encompassed examples not only of whatwas learned (e.g. specific areas of knowledge, understanding and skill), but also ofways of thinking about learning (e.g. conceptions and definitions), and discoursesof learning (e.g. the changing uses of terms like ‘reflection’ and ‘visual learner’).Each of the five data-sets was coded, tabulated and analysed, and individual teach-ers’ contributions across the five sets were summarised. Patterns of similarity anddifference were identified for the group as a whole and for individual participants.Indications of stability and change over time were taken both from the teachers’reflective comments on their learning and our own comparisons of what they wroteor said about learning at the start and end of the course.

Addressing a broad theme of ‘change and continuity’ in the teachers’experiences drew our attention to two broad dimensions of learning in context.One distinction emerged between ‘personal learning’ and ‘professional role andpractice’ – the former representing teachers’ awareness of their core beliefs and

38 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

dispositions in different contexts and the latter concentrating more specifically onM.Ed. learning in relation to current professional practice. A second distinction laybetween those interests and perspectives that were maintained over time and thosethat indicated significant shifts in thinking. This was summarised in terms of the‘maintenance, development and integration’ of learning. Two aspects of ‘change’are represented here: ‘development’ refers to the accumulation and elaboration ofknowledge, skills and understanding in different contexts, while ‘integration’acknowledges significant transformations bridging professional activity, M.Ed.learning and personal life.

Identifying these two dimensions allowed us to represent possible relationshipsbetween different aspects of the teachers’ learning experience, as discussed in thenext section. Distinctions between them should not, however, be overplayed whenthinking about the actual learning experiences of particular teachers on the course.There are dynamic interconnections and feedback loops evident in any complexhuman learning process. Our initial concern in analysing the data at ‘group’ level isto support further discussion and understanding of M.Ed. partnership learning byeliciting potentially significant aspects of learning experience from teachers’ ownreflective accounts.

Results

Aspects of learning experience over time: emerging landscape

The following six aspects of learning experience were identified:

(A) being a learner;(B) learning as part of professional practice;(C) widening repertoire;(D) changing as a learner;(E) personal growth;(F) critically adaptive practice.

Table 1 summarises these findings with selected quotations to illustrate ideasemerging in the group. Individual teacher sources for illustrative quotes have beenidentified with letters ‘a–p’, following the data-set reference 1–5. In Table 1, aspectsA (being a learner) and B (learning as part of professional practice), both relate tothe sense of self as a learner evident at the start of the course and sometimes, butnot always, maintained over time. C (widening repertoire) and D (changing as alearner), encapsulate aspects of further development over time in personal and pro-fessional contexts. E (personal growth) and F (critically adaptive practice), bothrepresent experiences of learning which are more explicitly integrated and adaptiveacross personal and professional contexts.

The six aspects in Table 1 can be ordered to highlight the relationships betweenthem, with reference to the two dimensions outlined above (personal/professionalcontext and maintenance/change over time). We initially set out the typology in asimple matrix form. This abstract representation did not, however, seem to do jus-tice to the grounding of the model in what teachers had said about their learning,individually and collectively. An alternative visual representation was needed toallow the possibility of shifting attention between general ‘aspects of learning’emerging from the group and their interconnections in the experience of the

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table1.

Aspectsof

course

mem

bers’learning

experiencesover

time.

Aspectsof

teachers’learning

experience

Mainfocusandfeatures

Illustrativ

equotes

Being

alearner

Personallearning

with

inandbeyond

immediate

professional

andacadem

ichorizons

•strong

senseof

selfas

alearnerin

differentcon-

textsover

time

•learning

isdeeply

felt,

reflectiv

e,detailedand

embedded

inpersonal

identity

Asalearnerin

allcontextsItend

tobe

system

atic

andmethodical.I

getabsorbed

inthings.Iam

tracingmyfamily

tree…

(Set

2:i)

Ihave

changedas

alearneras

Ihave

grow

nolderandam

much

morewillingto

accept

challenges,both

intellectually

andphysically.

(Set

1:h)

Learningas

part

ofprofessional

practice

M.Ed.

learning

inrelatio

nto

currentprofessional

practice

•contextualisationof

learning

inprofessional

practice,

decision-m

akingandactio

nin

school

•acknow

ledgem

entof

complex

andunsure

nature

oflearning

inprofessional

practice

•referenceto

rolesandrelatio

nships

with

colleagues

andchild

ren

…ifyoucansparethetim

eto

watch

andlearnfrom

how

(the

child

ren)

learnandhow

they

approach

things

–that’sbeen

areally

bigpartof

mylearning

Ithink(Set

2:c)

…professional

learning

really

takesup

thewhole

ofmythinking

…learning

otherthings

arecompartmentalised…

you’re

alwaysthinking

aboutwaysthat

youcanmoveadultsforw

ardin

orderto

help

them

movechild

ren…

(Set

2:a)

Widening

repertoire

Accum

ulationandelaborationof

professional

know

ledge,

understandingandskills

•incorporates

learning

processesandoutcom

es•

awarenessof

supportin

M.Ed.

research

projects,

supervision,

groupdiscussion

andwritin

g•

academ

icreadingoftenmentio

nedas

particularly

significant

Reading

aboutthedifferentview

sof

learning

…throughauthorssuch

asVygotsky,

Dweck,

Sfard,McG

uinness,etc.

…hasinfluenced

me

bymyunderstandingof

how

child

renlearn,

how

teachers

learnand

how

teachers

teach…

Iusethisknow

ledgeto

support,challengeand

discuss(m

yteachers’)practicewith

them

.(Set

4:m)

(Contin

ued)

40 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table1.

(Contin

ued)

Aspectsof

teachers’learning

experience

Mainfocusandfeatures

Illustrativ

equotes

Changingas

alearner

Personalaw

arenessof

new

approaches

andorientations

tolearning

•refinementanddeepeningof

learning:reflexivity,

depthof

thinking,perseverance,criticalityandwill-

ingnessto

explore

•changing

motivations

andorientations

toM.Ed.

learning

(e.g.extrinsicto

intrinsicconcerns)

Thiscourse

hasopened

upnew

waysof

lookingat

challenges

and

problems.Ithastaught

meto

look

beyond

superficial

explanations

andto

delvedeeper

…Ihave

also

learnedto

take

amoreexploratory

approach

tolearning.(Set

4:b)

PersonalGrowth

Integrated

learning

bridging

thecontextsof

professional

activ

ity,M.Ed.

learning

andpersonal

life.

•taking

risks,gainingconfi

denceandneedingto

achieveawork/lifebalanceover

time

•experiencing

satisfactionon

meetin

gandcomplet-

ingM.Ed.

challenge

•feelings

ofem

powerment,e.g.

confi

denceto

exploreotheropportunities

inlife

Leading

asessiontaught

methat

Icangrow

asalearnerandhelp

others

tounderstand

sometim

esabstract

ideas.Because

Iam

surrounded

bychild

reneverydayitsometim

esseem

sthat

ourow

nacadem

icqualities

arelost,so

thecourse

hasenabledmeto

re-use

them

andim

provethem

.(Set

4:f)

Critically

adaptiv

epractice

Morequestio

ning,criticalandadaptiv

eprofessional

practice

•ongoinginterestin

connectin

gtheoretical

and

practical

sourcesof

know

ledge

•changesin

professional

perspectives

andpriorities

•strengtheningandassertivenessof

professional

values

Myresearch

hasmademethinkaboutthedifference

betweenwhat

‘one

says

onedoes’as

opposedto

what‘one

actually

does’…

daily

practices

donotalwaysfitneatly

into

amodel.(Set

4:d)

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

individuals involved. Indeed, attention shifting between the group and the individu-als is important for avoiding unhelpful circularity in applying a typology derivedfrom what the group of teachers said. The ‘landscape’ representation of Figure 1was developed to represent this thinking, offering the possibility of mapping indi-vidual learning experiences over time, in relation to a framework emerging fromthe whole group.

Individual learning experiences can be compared on the landscape of Figure 1.For instance, all four primary headteachers referred in some way to their self-aware-ness of learning (A) and learning as part of professional practice (B), but their pathsdiverged. One became particularly aware of his widening repertoire (C) in educa-tional knowledge and understanding of professional skills and research; another feltshe had significantly changed as a learner (D), noting ‘… a more learning-orientedapproach as opposed to performance-oriented view, and this influences my practicewith children and teachers’; the third acknowledged personal growth (E) as well asprofessional development in her academic achievement at Masters level.

Each referred to several overlapping aspects of learning experience in theiraccounts, as is seen in this fourth headteacher’s experience. She had seen herself atthe start of the course as a thoughtful and practical decision-maker at school andhome:

I’ll look at the pros and cons maybe and think ‘…right, ok, I’m going to just give it ago then and see what happens’ because you can’t make your final judgement untilyou… your final learning’s not done until you’ve done it. (Set 1: g)

A. Being a learner

B. Learning as part of professional practice

D. Changing as a learner

C. Widening repertoire

E. Personal growth

F. Critically adaptive practice

Personal Learning

Professional role and practice

Maintenance Development Integration

Figure 1. ‘Landscape’ model of aspects of learning experience during a two-year part-timepartnership M.Ed. course, reflecting increasing depth, breadth and integration.

42 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Initially a rather independent learner, as time went on she said that she found iteasier to learn alongside others and she extended opportunities for collaborativelearning experiences among her school staff. Her final M.Ed. metaphor is a ‘para-chute jump’ narrative, indicating her feeling of engagement in a ‘daring challenge’and leap into the unknown. She also comments on her growing criticality at the endof the course:

I have learnt to question theory and research outcomes in a more detailed manner. Ifeel less gullible when reading reports – don’t automatically believe – find out moreabout the background of the research (design, sample, etc.). (Set 4:g)

It is interesting to see the framework in action in this way, providing a tool forthinking about what these course members each said about their learning. Thisdoes not define the person, however. As seen above, there are additive, interac-tive and sequential links in the actual narratives of teachers’ learning experiencesover time. There are also reversals and non-linearity in any learning process, andthe ‘landscape’ form of Figure 1 is intended to allow such changes of directionto be accepted, understood, discussed and recorded. In professional terms, themapping approach holds promise for ongoing collaborative reflection in partner-ship work.

Learning in school and university contexts: reconciling theory and practice?

Of particular interest for partnerships are the teachers’ experiences of learning inschool and university contexts, and their use of different sources of theoretical andpractical knowledge. Many referred specifically to the significance of developingdialogue and collaboration with school colleagues as both a support and a conse-quence of their learning. Yet the teachers, particularly the senior leaders, alsoacknowledged the social and contextual pressures of ‘public’ learning in school, thedangers of failing to meet colleagues’ expectations, the constraints of time and com-peting priorities and so on. The wider political context beyond school also came tothe fore for some who remarked on their new professional confidence to deal withnational policy directives and other external pressures in school life. At the end ofthe M.Ed. course, many of the teachers referred to their awareness of being moreconfidently engaged in the rigorous questioning and use of different forms ofknowledge, supported by a widening knowledge-base as well as enhanced powersof critical thinking.

The senior leaders in the group responded in different ways to their particularawareness of ‘theory–practice’ tensions. For instance, at the start one expressed herfrustrations about using published research:

… we all know as teachers … that there’s a huge body of research out there … butactually having the time to look at it and to reflect on how that impacts on your day-to-day practice is virtually impossible to be frank. (Set 2:d)

By the end of the course, she seems to have found at least partial resolution byincorporating the M.Ed. into her life, and in turn developing her engagement withresearch:

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Doing the MEd has changed my thinking about me as learner and how the sessions,residentials and writing became part of my life. … Engaging with other research dur-ing the MEd has made me more willing to make the time to engage with it on anongoing basis. (Set 5:d)

Another senior leader was at a different starting point in initially finding academicreading to be particularly challenging. After engaging in two years of academicstudy she remarks:

It has been 30 years since I attempted any type of ‘academic study’. I believe I havelearned a lot from the ‘disciplined’ academic processes and procedures of reading andwriting, reflection and discussion … It is hard to find the motivation to do this in iso-lation and it is much easier to do with the support of others. … What is very useful isthe fact that you can read/research into an area which you are interested in or workingin – therefore it works with your work, not in isolation to it. (Set 4:e)

A third senior leader, with recent experience of previous academic study, repre-sented the integrated nature of his learning experience in his final metaphor as‘Web 2.0 technology’: with himself at the centre of a complex system of ‘communi-cation, ideas, sharing, empowerment, change, dialogue’. At this point, after com-pleting the M.Ed., he felt he was effectively bridging research and practice bybringing the result of his own learning to his professional dialogue with school col-leagues:

(I am) far more reflective as a senior leader…. As a deputy head teacher I was able touse my research findings to change policy and practice of self-evaluation…Reflectionand a constant awareness of the need to question my own thinking, connected mylearning and practice. It was a very inductive exercise all in all. (Set 5:b)

These brief personal accounts draw attention to the different ways in which teachersand school leaders handled their experiences of learning in school and universitycontexts, drawing on different sources of knowledge over time and integrating themin practice.

Discussion

Our analysis of teachers’ accounts of their learning experiences supports the widercontextualisation of this type of M.Ed. learning and the rippling effects on all thoseinvolved. There are signs of continuity, change and variety in teachers’ learningexperiences within and beyond their professional worlds. As course tutors we alsochallenged and extended our individual interests and theoretical positions. This wasnot straightforward for a diverse tutor team. For instance, in attempting to under-stand the teachers’ varied perspectives we needed to discuss our own theoreticalperspectives on dialogue, collaboration, partnership and learning, bringing togetherdifferent literatures, conceptualisations and terminology without always resolvingthe differences we encountered. Over time, the collaborative experience of research-ing teachers’ partnership learning confirmed the central importance as course tutorsof positioning ourselves as learners and not as experts with school colleagues castas followers. Involvement in the partnership course is, by definition, not a one-wayprocess of professional development. It prompts collaborative knowledge-buildingwithin a series of interconnecting networks in school, university and other contexts.

44 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

This view of partnership learning fits well with a sociocultural view of collabo-rative professional learning in which colleagues repeatedly come together in differ-ent formations and contexts to pursue the aims and purposes that they have incommon and separately. A shared physical and social arena for learning (such as acourse seminar or school meeting) will be construed differently, at different times,by those involved according to their experience and interests (Smagorinsky, 2010).As time went on, individual teachers placed different emphases on their increasingknowledge and skills, powers of critical thinking, changing learning orientationsand overall personal growth. Our analytical approach and ‘landscape’ representationin Figure 1 offer a way of understanding teachers’ individual and collective M.Ed.participation, without assuming that their learning experiences were entirely similar,or different, or fragmented and incoherent. The result provides a tool for under-standing and developing professional learning in partnership, while acknowledgingthe complex nature of human learning. In practical terms, the framework and gen-eral approach has since been discussed with new M.Ed. cohorts – not as a fixedand abstract profiling tool but as an example from a previous group’s experiencestaking account of changing times, purposes and interests.

Of particular interest for us as course tutors in the partnership were the teach-ers’ experiences of learning in school and university contexts. University-basedforms of knowledge are commonly seen as propositional, general, abstract andexplicit compared with the practical, local, contextualised and often tacit forms ofknowledge that underpin the ‘real-world’ practical work of teachers and leaders inschools and classrooms. Knowledge sharing was a central feature and challenge ofthe partnership Masters programme, and the M.Ed. context allowed it to beprioritised – unlike the normal experience of many teachers and even universitytutors. One of the consequences for our own thinking was to question the ‘the-ory–practice’ divide, prompted by focusing in detail on the teachers’ accounts oftheir learning during the M.Ed. course. This was a significant point of discussionbetween the different perspectives of the tutor team. The teachers were engaged ina learning process which involves gaining new perspectives by crossing significantboundaries to unfamiliar learning territory – and learning in the process (e.g.Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Goodson, 2003; Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2009;Marton & Booth, 1997).

Attending to learning experiences and trajectories in this way suggests that thenotion of theory and practice ‘worlds’ should not represent a simple binary dividein social, geographical, personal, professional or academic terms. A centralchallenge in a schools–university partnership programme concerns the status ofdifferent forms of knowledge: how to promote a democratic epistemology whichaffirms and recognises the validity and relevance of different forms of knowledgeand different languages for expressing this knowledge – combating the perpetuationof an imposed knowledge hierarchy that privileges university-generated knowledgeand a theory–practice gap.

As tutors, this was not an entirely new understanding of theory, practice andprofessional learning. The difference lies in the transforming effects of analysingteachers’ learning in detail, and the associated shifts in thinking that feed forwardto future partnership work. Previously, for instance, M.Ed. discussions may havebeen seen as involving jigsaw-like attempts to fit examples of professional experi-ence with specific areas of academic knowledge. In contrast, a focus on purposefulindividual and collaborative learning within and beyond the M.Ed. course draws

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

attention, as in this case, to the maintenance of some areas of personal andprofessional learning, and the development and integration of others over time. Thisexplicitly affects course design and implicitly influences the nature of ongoingdialogue.

Our analysis of the teachers’ accounts confirms our expectations and hopes ascourse tutors that teachers’ participation in the partnership Masters programmewould go beyond their own individual learning and mere compliance to a set ofconventional university assessment instruments such as the written assignments thatparticipants were formally obliged to submit. The teachers participated in the coursein a whole-hearted and sophisticated way, adapting their expertise to the challengesof finding practical value in academic study. This went beyond engagement withresearch-based insights about relevant content knowledge to include the nature oflearning itself – their own, their colleagues’ and their students’. An awareness ofthese different conceptualisations of learning draws attention to the relationshipbetween these beliefs and practices in school.

Methodologically there are evident limitations in the current study, particularlywith regard to the lack of comparable evidence about our own parallel reflectionson learning during the course, the practical lack of opportunity to discuss the finalconclusions with the whole Masters group, and the lack of data on teachers’ nega-tive or inconclusive learning experiences. Most fundamentally there was a lack ofequal teacher participation in this tutor led research and analysis which calls formethodological development and further attention to the hidden influences of formalMasters assessment procedures and associated power relations. We are aware thatthe teachers’ accounts represent what they chose to express in this context, not justwhat they found personally salient.

There is clearly a need to work with schools to develop ways of involvingschool colleagues in the teaching and assessment of such M.Ed. programmes and inthe negotiation and decisions about the methods and forms of teaching and assess-ment. In addressing these challenges, we need to face up to the complexitiesinvolved in promoting and engaging with learning which span the boundaries of thedifferent though connected worlds of university and school practice. This of courseraises deep-seated micro-political issues related to sets of divergent interests andsub-groups within both university and school institutions, each with different per-spectives and levels of commitment to schools–university partnerships.

It is known that school cultures, discourses and practices need critical attentionto support teachers’ professional learning and school development (Hargreaves,1994; Imants, 2002; Lieberman & Miller, 2008; Pedder & MacBeath, 2008). Thesmall-scale project reported in this paper confirms the need to develop structuresand systems in both universities and schools to promote and embrace the potentialof more situated approaches to developing research-engaged leadership and teachingpractices. This requires finance and an institutional will in universities and schoolsto release staff to the sites of both institutions.

From the university perspective as course tutors there are unsurprisingly a num-ber of unresolved structural issues related to the design and control of criteria andforms of assessment and modes of teaching and learning. Their resolution points toidentifying key differences as well as similarities in the values, identities and priori-ties that shape work in and collaboration between schools and universities. The pur-poses and workings of schools–university partnerships highlight the long-termprocesses of learning required within complex systems of educational change and

46 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

innovation. The keys may lie in establishing momentum from communities ofresearch-engaged teachers, school leaders and university staff characterised by aspirit of collaborative learning, a willingness to exchange ideas, a preparedness todisclose stories of success and failure and an openness to what might be learnedfrom a broad range of sources in their own experience as well as theoretical andempirical research sources.

Conclusion

The significance of this work lies in the emphasis it places on the learning that iscentral to the experience of all involved in schools–university partnerships. It leads usto puts aside research questions about the generic professional outcomes of Mastersstudy, in favour of asking about the meaning of partnership M.Ed. learning forwhom? and when? Our findings suggest that more explicit attention to the learningelement of Masters partnership schemes may help to resolve some of the unhelpfullyabstract and divided ‘theory–practice’ tensions that can arise in education. A focus onparticipants’ learning assumes that useful knowledge develops through communica-tion and purposeful collective activity over time rather than through adherence toparticular theoretical or practical knowledge sources. Our visual representation of the‘landscape’ of the course participants’ learning experiences reflects the possibility ofincreasing depth, breadth and integration in Masters learning, without expecting orfixing particular learning paths for individuals or groups. This encapsulation ofaspects of learning experience itself becomes a tool for further discussion of thenature and purpose of schools–university partnerships. The close analysis of teachers’and school leaders’ professional and personal learning experiences draws attention tothe structures, values and cultures that shape schools–university partnership work,and that are in turn shaped by the learning of those involved.

AcknowledgementsThis work reflects the significant and distinctive contributions of teachers and local authoritycolleagues to the Essex schools–university partnership (2007–2010). We are also grateful toour Faculty of Education colleague, Dr Kristine Black-Hawkins, for helping to conceptualiseFigure 1.

ReferencesAdamson, B., & Walker, E. (2011). Messy collaboration: Learning from a learning study.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 29–36.Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recom-

mendations of the Cambridge primary review. Abingdon: Routledge.Akkerman, S.F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of

Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.Baumfield, V., & Butterworth, M. (2007). Creating and translating knowledge about teaching

and learning in collaborative school–university research partnerships: An analysis ofwhat is exchanged across the partnerships, by whom and how. Teachers and Teaching,13(4), 411–427.

Burton, D., & Goodman, R. (2011). The masters in teaching and learning: A revolution inteacher education or a bright light quickly extinguished? Journal of Education forTeaching, 37(1), 51–61.

Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2007). The continuing professional development of teachers: Issuesof coherence, cohesion and effectiveness. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbookof School Effectiveness and Improvement (pp. 707–726). Dordrecht: Springer.

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University.Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136.Fox, R., White, C.S., & Kidd, J.K. (2011). Program portfolios: Documenting teachers’

growth in reflection-based inquiry. Teachers and Teaching, 17(1), 149–167.Goodson, I.F. (2003). Professional knowledge, professional lives: Studies in education and

change. Maidenhead: Open University.Hall, E. (2009). Engaging in and engaging with research: Teacher inquiry and development.

Teachers and Teaching, 15(6), 669–681.Handscomb, G., & MacBeath, J. (2003). The research-engaged school. Colchester: Essex

County Council, FLARE.Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in

the postmodern age. London: Cassell.Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach.

Buckingham: OUP.Horn, I.S., & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources

for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American EducationalResearch Journal, 47(1), 181–217.

Imants, J. (2002). Restructuring schools as a context for teacher learning. InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 37(8), 715–732.

Jackson, C. & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: theimportance of peer learning for teachers. NBER Working Paper Series (No. 15202).Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Korthagen, F.A.J. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching andTeacher Education, 26(1), 98–106.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improvingteaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Little, J.W., & Veugelers, W. (2005). Professional learning and school-network ties:prospects for school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6(3), 277–291.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory and practical wisdom inteaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 225–240.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.McIntyre, D. (2010). Has classroom teaching served its day? In B Moon, M. Ben-Peretz, &

S. Brown (Eds.), The Routledge International Companion to Education (pp. 83–108).London: Routledge.

McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K., McIntyre, D., & Townsend, A. (2008). Networkingpractitioner research. Abingdon: Routledge.

Meirink, J.A., Meijer, P.C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individuallearning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching, 13(2), 145–164.

Pedder, D., & MacBeath, J. (2008). Organisational learning approaches to school leadershipand management: Teachers’ values and perceptions of practice. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 19(2), 207–224.

Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers’ talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teachingand Teacher Education, 26(4), 838–844.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamic of school development. Buckingham: Open

University.Smagorinsky, P. (2010). A Vygotskian analysis of the construction of setting in learning to

teach. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural–HistoricalPerspectives on Teacher Education and Development (pp. 13–29). Abingdon: Routledge.

Stoll, L., & Seashore Louis, K. (Eds.). (2007). Professional Learning Communities: diver-gence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 63–76). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of profes-sional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching andTeacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.

West, M. (2010). School-to-school cooperation as a strategy for improving student outcomesin challenging contexts. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 93–112.

48 R. Kershner et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Appendix 1: Essex M.Ed. ‘School Improvement for All’ course overview

Location: Twilight sessions at Essex local authority professional development centre, withtermly weekend residential conferences at Cambridge University Faculty of Education.

Main themes and topics: As listed below, plus ongoing research methods sessions on datacollection, analysis, ethical issues and so on. Additional keynotes given on specific areas,such as ‘Gender and Attainment’ and ‘Lesson Study’.

Autumn term (Year 1): Developing Critically

(1) Understanding learning.(2) Professional learning of teachers.(3) Making sense of thinking.(4) Motivation and learning.

Spring term (Year 1): Building Knowledge–Improving Practice(1) School effectiveness and school improvement.(2) Learning in networks.(3) Models of leadership.(4) School self-evaluation.

Summer term (Year 1): Approaches to Educational Enquiry(1) Practitioner inquiry and educational change.(2) Talk-based methods.(3) Interventionist research strategies.(4) Case study research.

Autumn term (Year 2): Policy, Curriculum and Pedagogy(1) Inclusion: policy, curriculum and pedagogy.(2) Frameworks of educational policy-making.(3) Curriculum: influence on policy and pedagogy.(4) Policy: influence on curriculum and pedagogy.

Spring term (Year 2): Building Knowledge – Disseminating Best Practice(1) Inclusion: research and practice.(2) Evidence-based policy and practice.(3) User engagement.(4) Validation and Warrants.

Summer term (Year 2): Supporting Participants’ Research(1) Student research presentations/Writing your thesis

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

eice

ster

] at

07:

51 1

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013