The importance of interplay between school-basedand networked professional development: Schoolprofessionals’ experiences of inter-school collaborationsin learning networks

Tunde Varga-Atkins Æ Mark O’Brien ÆDiana Burton Æ Anne Campbell Æ Anne Qualter

Published online: 23 September 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Previous literature has demonstrated that networks can be valuable

sources of professional learning. In 2005 all Liverpool schools formed into ten

Learning Networks with the aim of improving the quality, and entitlement of,

continuing professional development (CPD) for staff as part of a whole-scale local

authority initiative. The Liverpool Learning Networks Research explored profes-

sionals’ CPD experiences following this organizational change and whether it has

enhanced their practice. Triangulated data, a large-scale survey and qualitative

interviews conducted in 2007, seem to suggest that where professionals benefited

from professional learning in a networked context, the quality of the networked

CPD as well as a positive school culture and intra-school collaboration were all

important contributors to the success of networked-CPD. This finding can usefully

apply Turbill’s (Teacher learning for educational change. Open University Press,

Buckingham, 94–114, 2002) model of professional learning to the intersection

between school-based and networked-CPD, which suggests that it is at this inter-

section between internal and external domains that teacher learning can take place.

Two scenarios, where this interplay between school-based and networked CPD is

positive (enhancement) or negative (tension), are reported through five case studies

of professionals underpinned by the survey data, where relevant.

T. Varga-Atkins (&) � M. O’Brien � A. Qualter

Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Liverpool, 128 Mount Pleasant,

Liverpool L69 3GW, UK

e-mail: tva@liv.ac.uk

D. Burton

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

A. Campbell

Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK

123

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

DOI 10.1007/s10833-009-9127-9

Keywords Professional development � Professional learning � Collaboration �Networks � Schools � Teachers � CPD

Introduction

Terms of reference

This paper focuses on the experiences of school professionals of continuing

professional development in school-to-school networks based on the Liverpool

Learning Networks research project in the UK. Before describing the study, it is

necessary to establish how these key terms are used throughout the paper.

‘Continuing professional development’ (CPD), or also, professional develop-

ment, will be used to refer to both those formal and informal learning opportunities

which enable school professionals to improve their own teaching practice (Earley

and Bubb 2004) encompassing the intellectual, personal and social domains (Fraser

et al. 2007; Hoban 2002). Professional development in this sense is very much akin

to the concept of ‘professional learning’ in that it is understood as a non-linear

ongoing process rather than as an outcome of linear, one-off training events (Hoban

2002).

The paper is concerned with the examination of school-based and networked-

CPD with a particular emphasis on the way inter-school collaborations may enhance

school professionals’ practice. ‘School professionals’, at least in this study, included

teaching staff, with or without senior management responsibilities, support staff

such as classroom assistants and ICT technicians. ‘School-based CPD’ in this sense

refers to any professional learning opportunity which originates from within the

school, such as internal in-service training days, collaborative work with school

colleagues as well as training provided by external experts and other informal

learning opportunities taking place within the school environment. It is necessary to

emphasize that school-based CPD does not necessarily mean individual CPD. Intra-

school, or in-house, collaborations between school colleagues can be important

sources of professional development as identified by Siskin (1991), De Lima (2003)

and Bakkenes et al. (1999) who examined the role of departments as subcultures

operating in schools. ‘Networked-CPD’, as shorthand in this paper, includes the

specific opportunities provided by the collaborative arrangement of the Liverpool

Learning Networks (the subject of this study) and will not include the multitude of

other parallel networks of which professionals may be or may have been historically

members.

The next section therefore introduces the Learning Networks in the wider

educational context in England in which they were born. It then introduces a

framework for describing network characteristics (Lieberman and Grolnick 1996)

and a model of professional learning by Turbill (2002) which is applied to the

examination of networked-CPD in this study. The methodology section is followed

by the general survey findings, paving the way for the case studies which exemplify

the possible interplays (enhancement or tension) between school-based and

networked-CPD.

242 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

The professional development context in England

Recent years have seen a plethora of networked approaches to professional

development in the UK and beyond. Part of the rationale behind the networked

approach was that network schools’ involvement in commissioning and delivering

CPD would result in a more needs-driven solution aligned to the local character of

the schools (Jackson 2007). The benefits of this ownership over professional

development have shown to be positively linked to improving pupil learning (Bell

et al. 2006; Earl et al. 2006; Gilbert 2006).

The recent focus in education on collaborative CPD and networked approaches

meant that numerous studies positioned collaborative CPD as something that has a

beneficial effect on professionals’ teaching practice (e.g., Cordingley et al. 2003;

Lieberman 2000; McCotter 2001). Studies focusing on comparing individual with

collaborative CPD programmes found that the latter were more effective than

individualised CPD approaches (Cordingley et al. 2005b). As far as collaborative

CPD is concerned, the next section describes some of the highlighted characteristics

and tensions that educational networks as a specific form of collaborative CPD

brought to individual teachers.

The characteristics of educational networks

Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) researching sixteen educational reform networks in

the US, identified five characteristics that all networks had in common. These were:

• purpose: networks demonstrating a compelling idea for their existence;

• building collaboration and commitment: the relationship between networks

members, the build-up of trust and commitment being as important as the

network’s purpose;

• activities and relationships: the quality of network activities and the importance

of these in order to build relationships for a common network goal;

• leadership and facilitation: the influential role that network leaders and

facilitators have on the network;

• funding: resources were found to be essential in terms of network sustainability.

Further to these characteristics, Lieberman and Grolnick also outlined various

tensions that potentially existed in these network implementations. These tensions

included having to find the balance between network purpose and meaningful

activities; inside and outside knowledge; centralization and decentralization;

inclusivity and exclusivity of membership. McDonald and Klein (2003) aimed at

refining these tensions in order to arrive at effective ways of resolving them. These

commonalities and tensions served a useful framework around which the experiences

of the Liverpool school professionals could be described in these research findings.

In relation to network purpose, McDonald and Klein distinguished network activities

aimed at enhancing content and pedagogy and argued for a balance of these two.

With regards to knowledge sources, they identified inside (network members

learning from one another) and outside knowledge (members learning from the

external expert knowledge of others such as authors and consultants). Similarly to

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 243

123

Lieberman and Grolnick (1996), they found that a powerful synergy came together

when both these sources were present in the networks.

Turbill’s model of professional learning

The intersection between inside and outside knowledge is an important source of

learning in Turbill’s (2002) model of professional learning too. This model assumes

four basic knowledge domains that are essential to teacher learning arguing that

their interrelatedness is essential for long-term learning:

When teachers have a sense of their own needs and the opportunities to access

information (‘inside-out learning’), they are placed in a position to interact

with and engage in ‘new knowledge’ (‘outside-in learning’) and to take from it

that which they need. This process of transforming new knowledge with old

knowledge through the use of interrelated learning conditions of reflection,

sharing and collaboration, allows teachers to make the knowledge their own. It

is the synergy created through the interplay of these conditions that underpins

sustained professional learning (Turbill 2002, p. 97).

The four domains in Turbill’s view are: ‘my personal theory,’ ‘my personal theory

in practice,’ the ‘theory of others’ and the ‘theory of others in practice’ (Fig. 1).

Original figure from Hoban, Teacher learning for educational change: A systemsthinking approach. (Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2002,

page 96); reproduced with the kind permission of the Open University Press.

The model demonstrates that learning takes place at the intersections of these four

domains when professionals traverse the boundaries between their individual

knowledge and that of their colleagues. What Turbill’s model suggests is that the

intersection, which is assisted by the facilitator, itself occupies an important space. It

is where collaboration, reflection and sharing happen. The concept of liminality, the

Fig. 1 Turbill’s ‘frameworks’ as a model of professional learning (2002, p. 96)

244 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

in-between-space, allows such transitions to be illustrated in a temporal and spatial

way. The benefits of ‘looking out’ as well as ‘looking in’ were also emphasized by

Earley and Bubb (2004) in the context of professional learning communities.

Relating this metaphorical process to a physical space, the ‘window’ can be seen as

an example of liminal space through which the inside and outside can be traversed.

Original figure from Hoban, Teacher learning for educational change: A systemsthinking approach. (Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2002, page

96); reproduced with the kind permission of the Open University Press.

The interest of this paper was in understanding whether and in what way

networked-CPD benefited school professionals. Therefore applying Turbill’s model

of professional learning, the intersections between the school and network became a

focus of analysis (see Fig. 2 for an adaptation of Turbill’s diagram). The question

developed into: what was the quality of the learning in a networked context? Was

there interplay between their school and network practice? Did professional learning

take place at the intersection between school-based (inside-out learning) and

networked-CPD (outside-in learning)?

Most of the literature deals with either examining the benefits of a particular CPD

programme (which can be a networked experience) (e.g. Boyle et al. 2004) or explores

the point of view of individuals as they benefit from CPD in general (e.g. Hutchings

et al. 2006). This paper intends to contribute a novel perspective on the way school

professionals located their experiences of Learning Networks in the context of their

own school-based CPD experiences. The next section therefore describes the

Liverpool Learning Networks model as an example of inter-school collaboration.

The Liverpool Learning Networks

In 2005, all Liverpool schools formed into ten Learning Networks receiving a

budget and personnel in the form of a Learning Network Coordinator from the

Fig. 2 The focus of research: The intersection between school-based and networked-CPD (adaptingTurbill’s ‘frameworks’ model of professional learning (2002, p. 96))

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 245

123

Liverpool Local Authority. The networks aimed at improving the quality of CPD for

staff as well as using schools’ specialisms across the Learning Networks to identify

and develop good and innovative practice (Liverpool 2004). Localized inter-school

collaborations meant to increase the influence of professional development in the

classroom (O’Brien et al. 2008b). A key aspect of planning and delivering

professional development activities jointly was economies of scale.

Since 2005, the introduction of the Learning Networks, collaborative profes-

sional learning models, such as mentoring, coaching, critical friends, shared

observation and discussing the implementation of resources (Duncombe and

Armour 2004) became more and more established across the Learning Networks

through project work (with consultants or other professionals such as artists),

curriculum and cross-phase initiatives, leadership courses, network events (confer-

ences, themed days), newsletters, resource development, websites and Learning

Network bases. The initial stages involved strategic discussions such as co-leaders

and the other headteachers agreeing network priorities and what the network funds

would be spent on. A typical network event could be a network meeting organized

after the school day between the Learning Network’s primary subject coordinators

(literacy, mathematics, music etc.) who met as an informal network group with a

facilitator, who could either be a fellow school professional or a designated person,

or sometimes the Learning Network Coordinator him/herself.

Methodology

As organizational structures do not exist in themselves, the way professionals made

sense of them was a crucial focus for this study (Burrell and Morgan 1979). A more

naturalistic approach, a branch of ethnography (Schutz 1967), lent itself best to

exploring how professionals interpreted school networks and to what extent they

accessed and benefited from CPD in the Learning Network and in their school.

Firstly, through a survey that targeted a sample of all professionals in different roles

(e.g. senior managers, teachers and support staff1) across different Liverpool

schools,2 it was possible to reach a wide target population in an economic way

(Morrison 1993). Though a stratified random sample (Levy and Lemeshow 1999) of

the 185 schools was not possible due to resource and time limitations, a purposive

sample was chosen.

This meant that the headteacher in each school was asked to distribute the survey

according to various roles (e.g. head of department, teacher/nurse, subject

coordinator, classroom support and administrative staff), with a confidential return

envelope for each participant. The number of surveys received by schools ranged

from 5–14 depending on the phase (nursery, infants, junior, primary, secondary or

1 The perceptions and experiences of headteachers and school professionals in the new Learning

Networks have been extensively reported elsewhere (O’Brien et al. 2008b); this paper focuses on

practising school professionals.2 The educational system in England has the following types of schools: infants (4–7), junior (7–11),

primary (5–11 years), secondary (11–18) and schools for children with special needs (special), which can

also be at different school phase.

246 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

special needs).3 The survey was posted to 185 schools, and 2005 staff members, in

January 2007 with about six weeks available for return. The survey asked

professionals to rate both school-based and networked CPD in terms of variety,

relevance and impact on teacher and pupil learning as well as to identify successful

facilitators and barriers to collaborative working across schools. (See Appendix 2

for the full survey.) Appendix, Table 4 and 5 provide details of the individual

response rate (n = 253, 13%) by school phase and role. The return rate for schools

was higher (40%). The low response rate and the potential bias in sampling could be

seen as limitations of the research. It is worth noting that the rate of missing

responses varied from one question to another, thus the number of valid responses is

given for each numeric data in brackets (n).

The quantitative data allowed the research to generate an overall picture of the

extent that professionals were aware of and participated in the various Learning

Networks activities, and how they rated them in relation to the type of professional

development opportunities. In order to situate professionals’ experiences with CPD

in the Learning Networks in relation to their professional learning histories, the

qualitative survey responses and the qualitative interview method proved appro-

priate for methodological triangulation (Campbell and Fiske 1959). It was decided

that different cases which represented different views and experiences with

networked CPD would be purposively selected. This theory-seeking case study

method (Bassey 1999), allowed research into a particular situation, i.e. into

professionals’ view of CPD before and after the Learning Networks’ introduction, to

understand the reasons why networked CPD was viewed in a positive, negative or in

a neutral way. The advantage of triangulation was that the interviews could serve as

cases that gathered together the richness and complexity of individual CPD histories

and careers in professionals’ own school and network context. Out of fourteen, it

was possible to arrange and record nine interviews with school professionals

between March–April 2007. The transcript notes of the recorded interviews were

sent to each of the interviewees for checking; this was well received by the

professionals.

The qualitative interviews and survey data were then analyzed and themed using

a grounded approach (Glaser and Strauss 1968). Survey data identified that

professionals rated school-CPD more favorably than networked-CPD, but also that

networked CPD was regarded positively in general. This seeming contradiction was

then further explored in the qualitative responses and following the identification of

categories and subcategories, the relationships between the value of the Learning

Network to the professional and their school-based and networked-CPD experiences

were mapped. The emergent theory was that networked CPD was seen as

professionally beneficial in contexts where both intra- and inter- school networks

were seen as successful and relevant to the individual professional; this led to

applying Turbill’s model of professional learning (2002) in a school/network

context. Not knowing whether this sample size was great enough to reach saturation

could be seen as one limitation of the grounded method of analysis. Nevertheless,

3 The sample did not vary in terms of school size. As it was not possible to survey the number and role of

each staff at all the local authority’s schools within the time limits of the research.

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 247

123

these case studies have made it more possible to contextualize the qualitative survey

responses in a real-life context. To present professionals’ perceptions of CPD, five

vignettes of the case studies have been selected to exemplify the emergent theory.

Each vignette was based on one individual (names and details have been changed to

preserve anonymity), as opposed to being constructed as a fictional character from

different interviewees’ characteristics (see e.g., Campbell 2000), to serve as a mirror

their individual professional histories and school context. The vignettes were

presented using the themes that related to the emerging theory and paraphrased

keeping as close to the original expression as possible. The difficulty of

generalization is said to be one of the shortcomings of case study research (Nisbet

and Watt 1984). However, that these themes were echoed in the qualitative survey

responses suggests that the case studies may have pointed out aspects of the

Learning Networks that characterized school professionals’ perceptions of their

value—allowing for what Bassey calls, ‘fuzzy generalization’ (1999).

The next section details the survey findings, giving a picture of the breadth and

scale of the network initiative and experiences of school-based and networked CPD,

followed by a description and analysis where these two forms of CPD (a) enhanceand complement and (b) where the two forms are in tension with one another. Each

of the two scenarios is introduced through a school professional’s vignette and

structured using Lieberman and Grolnick’s (1996) framework on educational

networks, and where relevant, supported by the survey data.

Findings: Access to and perceptions of the quality of school-basedand networked CPD

One expectation with regards to the Learning Networks was that collaborative CPD

opportunities would extend the provision to school professionals and allow them to

access CPD. Another one was that due to its local character, CPD would be of more

relevance to staff which would lead to a greater impact on teacher practice and

student learning. The resulting picture however was more complex, both in terms of

access to networked professional development and its quality of provision for staff.

In the last 2 years previous to the survey, two-thirds of responding staff (65%,

n = 186) reported accessing at least one Learning Network activity (Table 1).

Perhaps a natural finding was that school-based CPD, in comparison with offerings

in the Learning Network, were higher in volume with 88% of professionals

(n = 223) accessing at least one school-based CPD activity. Clearly, access and

scale have shown to be challenges in similar authority-wide cross-school initiatives

(Coburn 2003; Jackson 2007). This was also true in the Learning Networks. The

percentage of those not having accessed any Learning Network activities (35%,

n = 186) was higher than those not having accessed school-based CPD activities

(12%, n = 223). In reality, if we consider the missing responses (26%, n = 253)

and those school professionals who did not return a survey (87%, n = 2,005), the

number of professionals who did not benefit from networked-CPD was potentially

248 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

higher, although some of this could also be due to staff not realizing that the activity

was arranged by their network initiative (Hutchings et al. 2006).

Senior school professionals were relatively well-served in terms of school-based

and networked CPD. The picture was different in the case of support staff. A much

higher number of classroom support professionals (64%) reported not having

accessed any networked CPD in the last 2 years as compared with only 16% of

senior managers who did not.

Almost a third of school professionals (29%, n = 178) have reported to be

members of a network group (e.g. subject coordinators meeting). That Learning

Networks were benefiting primary schools to a greater extent than secondaries, a

consistent trend in the research findings (O’Brien et al. 2008a), was evidenced by

the level of network membership in these two groups (primary 32%, secondary

17%) (Table 2).

Similarly, network membership was also more widespread in roles at the higher

end of the scale. In contrast to 54% of senior managers, 34% of teachers with a

management responsibility and 17% of teachers, no classroom support (0%) staff

reported that they were members in a network group. The high ratio of staff who

responded to the various survey questions with ‘[I] don’t know much about theLearning Network’ also suggests that the spread of knowledge about the Learning

Networks does take time to reach all levels, especially to support and administrative

staff. Another testament to this was that more than half of the respondents (56%)

claimed that few people in their school were aware of the Learning Networks:

Table 1 Number of CPD

accessed in the last 2 years

(2007)

Source: Staff survey 2007

(Appendix 2, Q4)

School Network

n % n %

None 28 12 65 35

One 13 6 35 19

A few 89 40 64 34

A fair amount 63 28 19 10

A lot 30 14 3 2

Total responded 223 100 186 100

Missing 30 67

Total sample 253 253

Table 2 Network group membership of school professionals (2007)

Member of

network group

School phase

Primary Secondary Special Unknown Total

N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 36 32 6 17 3 33 7 31 52 29

No 75 68 30 68 6 67 15 69 126 71

Total 111 36 9 22 178 100

Source: Staff survey 2007 (Appendix 2, Q3)

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 249

123

there has been minimal impact for grass roots teachers in our school from the

networks. It appears to be beneficial for senior management but is not trickling

down to the classroom (primary school professional).

According to the survey ratings, school professionals perceived both modes of

CPD (school and networked) positively in terms of variety, relevance and impact

(higher than the mean rating, see Appendix 2, Question 4). There seemed to be a

link between professional role and perceptions in both CPD modes.4 Those in a

more senior role had a more favorable opinion of the range and quality of

professional development activities available to them, whilst those in a support role

felt more under-provided for. Network members were significantly more likely to

report increased awareness of Learning Networks in their school, less difficulty with

time-off for collaborative activities, more gains in their professional practice and a

higher ability to draw on network colleagues. Membership was also an important

indicator of CPD ratings. There were significant differences between members and

non-members relating to the number of school-based and networked-CPD activities

taken part in, the variety that networked CPD offered and the ability to embed

network activities—with members being more positive than non-members. Inter-

estingly, relevance was not rated differently by these two groups, suggesting that a

school professional who was not part of a network project rated the relevance of

network activities as positively as did their member counterparts, which may

confirm the initial intention behind the introduction of the Learning Networks of

delivering local solutions to local CPD needs.

In summary, the more access professionals had to networked-CPD, the more

favorable their assessments tended to be. However, it was also the case that a large

percentage of school professionals did not have access to networked-CPD. Whereas

it could be expected that professionals would rate the quality of networked CPD at

least as positively as school-based CPD, the mean rating of networked-CPD in each

of the CPD aspects was lower than school-based CPD (Table 3).5 Lack of sufficient

access to networked-CPD may have been one of the reasons for this perceived

difference. It must be emphasized though that the survey gathered data after a

relatively short, 2 years, of network development compared with the outcomes of a

more established school-based provision.

The focus of this paper however is not so much the comparison of the two modes as

separate entities, but the way individual professionals experienced school-based CPD in

the context of collaborative, school-to-school opportunities: in other words, the

interplay between the two forms. Was this relationship positive, i.e. did the

4 The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Inferential statistics were performed on

a range of variables. The data were revealed to be non-parametric, so appropriate tests were chosen. For

instance, Spearman’s Rho was used to determine correlation (one-tailed). Similarly, Mann–Whitney and

Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare groups that had two, or two-or-more groups respectively. A

probability of \0.05 was taken as indicating a significant difference between means and this forms the

basis of the use of the term ‘‘significant’’ in this paper.5 There was also an interesting correlation between ratings of school-based and networked-CPD, i.e.

those who tended to rate school CPD higher, also had a more positive view of networked-CPD. This

implied that attitude of the individual professional to CPD in general played a great role when it came to

CPD assessments (Varga-Atkins et al. 2009).

250 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

professional’s network and school-based CPD experiences mutually enhance one

another? Or was there a tension, or lack of interplay, between the individual’s experience

of professional development in the school environment and that of their Learning

Network? The next section will offer a description and an analysis of both scenarios.

The interplay between school-based and networked-CPD

Recalling Turbill’s model (2002) from the introduction, professional learning occurs

when professionals, are enabled to integrate outside knowledge within their own

theory and practice, emphasising the role of the intersection of the various domains.

By applying this model to professional learning in the Learning Networks, this study

has become focused on the boundary between the school and the network domain as

the intersection, the source for professional learning. On the basis of the collected

research data, the two interplay scenarios between school-based and networked

CPD are identified: that of (1) enhancement and (2) tension. These are presented

below using brief case studies of individual professionals, and where relevant,

supported by further qualitative and quantitative findings.

Enhancement of professional learning: Positive interplay between

school-based and networked-CPD

This section depicts experiences in which there was a positive interplay between

school-based and networked-CPD. It first describes two school professionals’

experiences, then relates these experiences back to Turbill’s model of professional

learning. This is followed by an analysis of what made this positive interplay

possible at network and school level. The two vignettes are based on interviews with

school professionals whose network and school-based experiences were similarly

positive, bringing about a synergy between the two:

Maria is a primary teacher in one of the more deprived areas in the city. She is a

subject coordinator for Geography and Music in her school and currently teaching a

Year 1 class. She works closely in school together with Sonia, the nursery teacher

who is teaching Reception class children (pre-Year1) and Catherine, the Year 2

teacher. They meet regularly to discuss any teaching issues and what class activities

to do with children. Maria and Sonia go to their Learning Network’s meetings

Table 3 School professionals’

perceptions and experiences of

school-based and networked-

CPD

Staff survey 2007 (Appendix 2,

Q4)a The higher the value, the more

positive the rating

CPD aspect Min–max

valuesaMean

School (n) Network (n)

Number of CPD activities 1–5 3.24 (223) 2.25 (186)

Variety of CPD 1–4 2.76 (212) 2.09 (159)

Relevance of CPD 1–4 3.34 (206) 2.91 (131)

Impact of CPD on practice 1–3 2.27 (198) 1.96 (119)

Impact of CPD on pupil

learning

1–3 2.27 (187) 1.84 (116)

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 251

123

together, so Maria finds it much easier to share good ideas from the network back in

their school as part of their school-based curriculum meetings. They might even say

informally, between two cups of coffee, ‘there was this really good idea last night,

what do you think?’ Both her curriculum manager and her headteacher are very open

to new ideas, so when Maria and Sonia learnt about introducing play-based activities

to children in Year 1 at their network meeting, their manager was very supportive

when they wanted to implement it within their own school. This introduction was a

success. The Learning Network had done a lot of work on transition from Foundation

(pre-Year 1) to Key stage 1 (Year 1 and 2) and this transition group shared ideas on

how children’s attainment can be improved. Maria found it a relief to see that other

teachers had the same problems in the area. She felt that by going into others’ schools

and seeing their displays, she could see ‘where they were coming from,’ which

helped her relax in front of the others. In this informal atmosphere, Maria felt that

they could be more open about their problems and share them with one another.

Louise is a senior manager and teacher at an infant school in the city. She was

previously the CPD coordinator at the school; a role that she enjoyed. As part of her

Learning Network, she received training in storytelling from an outside expert who

came and worked with children in her school with the aim of improving their

literacy skills. This project was so successful that Louise was asked to report back

on it to the Learning Network’s headteachers’ group. The project and the

presentation gave her such confidence that she embarked on a headteacher training

qualification and is also giving input on storytelling techniques to other network

schools. At Louise’s school the teaching staff is organised in five teams, as a result

of the streams around the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda.6 Louise suggested

that whatever she learns as a result of her network membership, she brings back to

her team. They all work closely together and the school teams receive various in-

service training days together. There is a new geography coordinator in her ECM

school team. Louise has been thinking about how to involve and support her. The

Learning Network informs her thinking and so she has come up with the idea of

using storytelling techniques learnt as a result of her network in geography, which

she intended to develop with her new team member. Louise also took part at a CPD

event in another local authority. She found having external and outside views useful,

and again, she brought back this learning to her own school.

Although in these short vignettes, it is not possible to describe the depth of Maria’s

and Louise’s CPD experiences, they do signal some common themes that various

other professional identified in their responses and which relate to Turbill’s model

(2002) of professional learning applied in the school/network context. Both teachers

are members of successfully operating network groups which have provided them

with new ideas, resources and contributed to their personal growth. Both depict a

nurturing school environment which enables them to participate in CPD and supports

them in carrying out innovations and modifying their practice within the school both

6 Every Child Matters was a UK government initiative introduced in 2003 in response to the death of

Victoria Climbie; it has five strands: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution

and achieve economic well-being.

252 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

at a managerial and a collegial level. Their intra-school networks are strongly

supportive too. For instance see Maria’s close relationship with her Foundation and

Key Stage 1 team, and Louise’s within-school team which centres around the Every

Child Matters agenda, a cross-curricular theme in school life.

Facilitators of professional learning at the NETWORK level

So what are the conditions that make such a positive interplay at the level of the

network possible? Using Lieberman and Grolnick’s (1996) five network themes,

this section will highlight some of the findings of the interviews and survey data

collected by referring back to the above two case studies as exemplars.

1. Shared purpose

Both Maria and Louise experienced ‘the network’ as an entity which had a common

purpose and which benefited their individual professional needs. They attributed this

success, as did other survey and interview respondents, with their headteachers’ close

involvement in setting CPD priorities for the network. Headteacher involvement

meant that the network was able to respond to their own individual CPD issues and

needs for the problems that they faced in their respective schools.

2. Collaboration and commitment

Both Maria and Louise belonged to network groups that worked well and whose

members valued and respected one another. This experience was underpinned by

survey data indicating that 40% of school professionals (n = 205) agreed or agreed

strongly with the statement that they were able to collaborate successfully with

other schools. Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) saw the forging and evolving

commitment between network members as an important ingredient for networking,

which was expressed by various respondents:

the word network is the reason for success. It allows staff to feel supported,

enables staff to share expertise and good practice. It allows schools to

collaborate and explore ideas. Being the only special school in the network, it

allows us to share expertise in this specialist need (special school professional).

This commitment translated into positive experiences of professional develop-

ment. The benefits and impact of collaborative CPD have been demonstrated by

other studies (Cordingley et al. 2003, 2005a, 2005b) as was the co-relation between

length and impact of CPD (Reeves et al. 2003; Boyle et al. 2004). Similarly, the

Learning Networks survey data demonstrated that members of such sustained

groups, as Maria and Louise experienced, were more likely to rate networked CPD

positively than non-network members. Further reasons for this are to be found in the

quality of networking which embraced the activities and the development of

relationships between members.

3. Activities and relationships

Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) outlined the importance of purposeful and

relevant network activities for successful networks, which, at the same time,

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 253

123

nurtured the social and personal relationships between members. Similarly,

Hargreaves pointed out the importance of teachers’ emotions when undergoing

educational change (2005). The social aspect of networking was shown to be

essential for the Learning Network professionals too. For instance, Maria

highlighted the effect that the location of the network meetings had on their

relationship between network members. By being able to see one another’s corridor

and classroom displays (‘where they were coming from’), network members relaxed

in front of one another. This created a trusted, open environment where

professionals could talk about their problems, test their ideas and take risks. As

Louise explained later on in her interview, it was the respect between the Learning

Network members that stood out for her in terms of the distinctness of her CPD

experience in the Learning Networks. Other professionals felt that they were now a

member of a ‘family of schools’ with like-minded professionals who had similar

issues and similar successes. As another newly qualified teacher (NQT) put it:

it is a great comfort as an NQT to share experiences with other NQTs

(secondary school professional).

What accounts like these demonstrated were that the social and cultural elements

(building of trust, the personal relationships and the willingness to share) were seen

as essential as the organizational and managerial elements, and this was more likely

to cause transformational change (Fraser et al. 2007). Feeling supported, empow-

ered to take risks by innovating, knowing that one could turn to someone with a

professional problem were some of the ways professionals expressed their

membership in the Learning Networks resulting in increased self-worth, profes-

sional pride and confidence. A good example of this was Louise embarking on a

headteacher training qualification as a result of her successful network experience.

Or, as one teacher put it:

they [the networks] have opened up opportunities for support staff in

particular, to participate in workshops generally aimed at teachers which has

boosted confidence in their own abilities and increased self-worth tremen-

dously (primary school professional).

Where professionals found the quality of network activities relevant and

immediately useful, they expressed a positive view of networking. Both case studies

demonstrated that network activities where they had an instant effect on their

teaching theory or practice, they were well received by teachers. The examples

included being provided with story-telling techniques (Louise) or shared resources

which could immediately be used for lesson plans or monitoring students’ progress

through transition (Maria). Survey data also confirmed this characteristic, with 71%

of professionals (n = 131) rating networked-CPD fairly or very relevant. This may

suggest that the initial intention behind the introduction of the Learning Networks to

deliver local solutions to local CPD needs seemed to materialize at least for these

respondents in the survey. The network groups offered support both in terms of

content and pedagogy, and this balance was something that McDonald and Klein

(2003) identified as an aspect of effective networking. What was implied in both of

254 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

the above case studies and other accounts made by professionals was the importance

of the facilitator who coordinated these activities.

4. Facilitation

Brokering, facilitating and cross-cultural communication were all important

though not always visible aspects of network life of which Lieberman and Grolnick

(1996) have emphasised the importance. In their findings with some networks, the

personality and style of the network leader could be more instrumental to its success

than any other aspect. Earley and Bubb (2004) have called attention to the need for

balance between promoting a dynamic collaborative CPD environment that fosters

creativity but at the same time ensures high standards. School professional accounts

in the Learning Networks also confirmed the need for a good facilitator who has

sound knowledge and expertise in the given area. In Louise’s case study, the

coordinator of the story-telling network meetings was held as an expert who was

able to offer new theory and practice in the teaching of literacy for students. Maria’s

coordinator organized the network sessions in a way that they could have immediate

impact on their teaching practice in the form of typed-up meeting notes and shared

resources through administrative support. In the two accounts as well as in other

survey responses, the enthusiasm and expertise of the facilitator was tangible, and

this had a motivating power.

This demonstrates how the coordinator’s remit seemed to reach far beyond

subject expertise. It included skills around managing social and group relationships

as well as organizational skills. These were all appreciated by the study’s

respondents. The important part that the Learning Network coordinator played in

networking, i.e. linking individual professionals with one another, is one that arose

from the whole-authority nature of the Learning Networks. Strathdee (2007) pointed

out that networks were critical in transmitting tacit, ‘sticky’ information, especially

when such information was hidden under bureaucratic red tape. A number of

professionals expressed that the contact with either the Learning Network or

inclusion co-ordinator who had pointed them in the right direction—e.g. identifying

a key professional they needed to consult for information on protocols—resulted in

getting their information which would have otherwise been near impossible for the

individual professional to find. Professionals cited help with multi-agency working

and being linked up with other teaching and non-teaching professionals as

advantages of networked-CPD.

5. Funding

The question of funding was a unifying theme across all the educational networks

examined by Lieberman and Grolnick (1996). At the level of the individual school

professionals this played out in appreciating the provision of the network, such as

the resources and the activities. Commissioning power, economies of scale, being

able to key into local, regional and national opportunities were all found as benefits

of collaboration in previous studies (Earley and Bubb 2004). A common theme in

the case of the Learning Network concerned similar aspects. For instance, the

network paid for the story-telling expert in the case of Louise or for administrative

support in the case of Maria. In the case of other small primary schools, they were

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 255

123

able to afford or organize events on a larger scale, or invite a more illustrious

provider or book a venue that would not have otherwise been possible:

useful to talk to teachers in local schools. Beneficial to plan together and go on

visits together to cut time and costs (primary school professional).

In another case, one professional described how their school staff could benefit

from a forty-workshop network day. Their own school would not have been able to

organize an event at a similar scale within the timescale and resources. Being able to

offer a suitable range of networked CPD opportunities was the experience of a third

of the professionals (35%, n = 159) who claimed that they were able to benefit from

a reasonable or great variety of networked CPD.

Having outlined the facilitators of networking which contributed to the positive

experiences of professionals with networked-CPD, the next section identifies the

conditions that made school-based CPD a success.

Facilitators of professional learning at the SCHOOL level

In both Maria’s and Louise’s accounts, as well as in other interviews, what

transpired was a positive culture, also coined as ‘learning schools’ by Earley and

Bubb (2004), in which they were able to draw on the in-house expertise of

colleagues. Given that the nature of school culture and ethos is important for

effective professional development (Brown et al. 2001), this went to some way to

explain why other school professionals’ perceptions of school-based CPD were

generally positive in the survey. They seemed to feel that they had a range of

opportunities for developing and embedding their skills within their school

environment.

Both Maria and Louise described a school environment which was an important

source of their professional development. Whether in formal or informal ways, such

as benefiting from training within the school’s team structure or in-between catching

a cup of coffee, they benefited from collaborations with school colleagues.

Similarly, other Learning Network professionals saw school-based CPD as

equipping them with a wide variety of courses and events (66% reported a

reasonable or a great deal of variety, n = 212) which were also relevant to their

practice (86% of staff, n = 206, said these were fairly or very relevant).

There were also accounts of high quality, external training opportunities

identified either by the professional or the management team. This did not only

mean that CPD commissioning and delivery was effective at managerial level

within the school, but that the professionals were part of various intra-school

networks which enhanced their practice. Both Maria and Louise expressed the value

of the close working relationship they had with their school team (by key stage or

Every Child Matters agenda, respectively), which had close resemblance to sub-

units of school life such as departments in other studies. Siskin (1991) and Bakkenes

et al. (1999) emphasized the importance of in-school communities, units which were

usually linked by subject expertise, which allowed teachers to jointly work on

teaching resources. And since their immediate concern was the students in the

school, this closeness to teaching practice was a binding, motivating force in their

256 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

collaborations (Bakkenes et al. 1999). Joint work on resources was both something

that Maria and Louise benefited from. What seemed to make a difference in the case

of professionals like Louise and Maria was that they were able to test and embed

their new ideas in their classrooms because of this supportive environment. That this

was the experience of a number of other professionals who responded to the survey

was confirmed by the high impact ratings of school-based CPD on professional

practice (91% of staff, n = 198, reported medium or high impact).

The above analysis detailed the facilitators which made a positive network and a

positive school-based environment conducive for professional learning. The fact

that a similarly high rating was shown of the impact of networked-CPD on

professional practice (73% of staff reported medium or high impact, n = 119),

suggested that synergy existed between the two environments. Thus, next the

facilitators that make this synergy possible are discussed.

Facilitators at the intersection of school and networked CPD

Both Maria and Louise talked of their network experience as ‘going out’ (visiting

others’ schools or meeting external experts such as artists) and ‘bringing back in’

(either bringing network ideas back to school or continuing network discussions in

their school). In Maria’s case, the fact that she could attend network events with her

close colleague ensured that when returning to her school, she could continue

discussions with her and jointly work on changing practice and resource development.

Whilst other professionals who took part in networked-CPD on their own did not have

this opportunity. Some talked about the isolated feeling after returning back to their

own school: they were not able to implement the good ideas that they had received.

This suggests that the embedding of network outcomes could be accelerated if

professionals from the same school jointly attended network events. Similarly, in

Louise’s case, the arrangement of the intra-school team and their close working

relationship ensured that networked CPD could impact on her own practice as well as

her team members. The fact that these experiences were possibly felt by others was

demonstrated in the survey results with a number of staff claiming that they were able

to embed network outcomes in the school (33%, n = 160) and the above mentioned

rating of high or medium impact of network CPD (73%, n = 119 or 106).

What made possible this liminal learning, was the synergy between the two forms

of CPD in providing a conduit that linked the different (physical and metaphorical)

spaces together (in-and-out of school, school-to-school and school-to-network). This

is in harmony with the findings of Tempest and Starkey (2004) who found that—in

networked environments—learning happened at the point of organizational divides.

Networked-CPD took professionals out of their own school context (the ‘inside-out

learning’) and placed them together with professionals from different schools (the

‘outside-in learning’). Dialogue at this intersection then brought out tacit knowledge

about professionals’ own professional beliefs and attitudes to teaching. Professionals

were able to reflect on their own practice because of interpreting it from a different,

external vantage point as if looking in through both sides of a window (see Fig. 3)

And so, the recognition of the limits of learning alone from one’s own experiences

(Day 1999) became an opportunity for network members.

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 257

123

A number of professionals expressed that CPD in networks was ‘‘a way of sharingideas and seeing them develop through others as well as myself’’ (Staff survey 2007).

This learning on behalf of one another echoed the NCSL’s networked learning

communities model (NCSL 2009 n.d.). These collaborative activities facilitated not

just the traversal between the domains between the ‘my’ and that of ‘others’ but also

linked theory with practice in each of the respective domains, creating the space for

sustained professional learning (Turbill 2002). There were however experiences of

school professionals in the Learning Networks where this synergy between school-

based and networked-CPD was not present: these will be described in the next section.

Tension or lack of interplay between school-based and networked-CPD

This section depicts experiences in which there was a tension, or lack of interplay,

between school-based and networked-CPD. On the basis of data collected, two

possible scenarios could be outlined. One in which the school professionals

experienced a positive learning environment in their school but a negative network

experience, and the other a positive network experience together with a school

context which was not conducive to the embedding of their learning once back in

their school. Both scenarios are discussed next. Similarly to the previous section,

they use vignettes relating professionals’ experiences back to Turbill’s model of

professional learning, followed by an analysis of what the sources of this tension

were at network and school level.

Fig. 3 Inside-out and outside-in learning

258 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

Tension between positive school and negative Learning Network experiences

For many school professionals in the Learning Networks, the school-to-school CPD

experience was a negative one. Two examples have been chosen to exemplify some

of the reasons which were shared by other respondents:

Elisabeth is a Head of Department in Mathematics in a secondary school in the city.

She is also the Key stage 3 coordinator for maths, responsible for the curriculum

development in the school. As a Head of Department she requests external CPD

training, including in-service training, on her staff’s behalf. In her school as part of

their QA [quality assurance] performance cycle, she observes all her staff in the

department teaching once a year; she is observed too. Elisabeth used to go the

meetings of Heads of Mathematics across the city and made use of the local

authority’s subject consultant previous to the Learning Networks. This was beneficial

as it provided information on large events and tackled issues relevant to her.

Elisabeth felt that with the introduction of the Learning Networks, this new

arrangement was taking funds away from a previously good quality subject

provision. Whereas previously she could benefit from the knowledge of all the thirty-

three secondary schools’ Heads of Mathematics, her Learning Network contained

only three secondary schools, which did even not share the same A-level exam

board7 and so, cross-school sharing of experiences was an issue. Elisabeth said she

understood and appreciated collaboration and saw that the Learning Networks were

useful for primary schools because of their scale. Primaries had sometimes single

practitioners in their own subject, as opposed to the mini-networks of the secondary

subject departments with 5–6 people, and so staff could feel isolated in terms of their

CPD. Elisabeth also added that the competitive school culture with league tables was

not conducive to collaboration. In her experience of the Learning Networks, she felt

that members were compelled to network, there was a lack of purpose in the meetings

and no-one wanted the job of the facilitator. Elisabeth did have other network

experiences which were positive; she was a member of a national subject association

which shared practice and resources with its members through a newsletter and

website and she herself initiated previous networks which grew out of her own links

which she considered ‘genuine networking.’

Mark is an advanced skills teacher with a specialism in English in a primary school

which had a Beacon status.8 Mark used to plan and conduct demonstration lessons

in his subject followed by a discussion with teachers on the teaching ideas. This

initial exchange was followed up after a number of weeks with teachers discussing

how they implemented the ideas. Mark felt that in his role as a trainer he himself

developed professionally as much as the participating teachers did. When the

Learning Networks were introduced Mark was initially enthusiastic, but slowly this

enthusiasm fizzled out. He felt that there were fewer CPD opportunities provided by

7 A-level is the Advanced Level General Certificate of Education offered by education institutions in

England, Northern Ireland and Wales comprising two years of study, typically between the age of 16 and 18.8 Beacon schools were a previous national initiative in which schools of good practice were identified

and resources provided for teachers to share this practice across other schools.

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 259

123

the networks and these were not necessarily in line with his school’s needs. He felt

there was a lack of a set agenda and facilitation when the teachers got together

(‘what do you want to discuss?’) He also commented on the fact that when primary

school professionals had more than one area they were responsible for, but the

network meetings for these different subjects were at the same time, the

professionals had to choose and so, lost out on valuable CPD opportunities. Mark

enjoyed collaboration and sharing successful innovations, but said that people did

not network well on a Thursday night after school [referring to the Learning

Networks]. He felt that networked-CPD did not provide as many resources as

previous initiatives, such as in his Beacon school experience.

Both Mark and Elisabeth had had positive encounters of collaborative CPD in

previous contexts and experienced the interplay between ‘outside-in’ and ‘inside-out’

learning under different settings. Their experience in the Learning Networks was not

so. Comments from both concerned the quality of their network experience. Since they

did not feel they benefited professionally from CPD in the Learning Networks, their

school practice was not complemented and enriched further: there was a tension, or loss

of opportunity between these two forms of CPD. Using the groupings by Lieberman

and Grolnick (1996) as before, reasons for this negative network experience are given

below, underpinned by data gained from other school professionals.

1. Purpose

Both Mark and Elisabeth drew attention to what they felt was a lack of purpose or

agenda in the Learning Networks. This occurred at various levels. Mark for instance

highlighted, as did other survey respondents, a mismatch between the school’s and

the network’s CPD priorities. This was directly or indirectly related to network size.

Network projects and events were decided by the headteachers of the Learning

Network. These network priorities tended to be subject areas or generic themes

(such as leadership training, or the use of ICT etc.). With networks as sizeable as

20–25 schools, it was also the case that the network priorities did not always closely

match that of the school’s or the individual professional’s immediate needs.

This discrepancy occurred at the level of the small network groups too. When

professionals were not sure why they were to meet and what they were supposed to

discuss in their respective network groups (usually in their subject area), professionals

did not see the benefit of the network groupings. This feeling of being compelled to

meet was a major issue when it came to negative experiences of networked-CPD.

2. Collaboration and commitment

The semi-voluntary nature of the Learning Networks, i.e. that each school had to

belong to one, but they could choose which one, resulted in professionals feeling that

their Learning Network was formed on an artificial basis rather than organically

grown out of a common need—this was the experience for instance by Elisabeth.

Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) had already found that the initial startup of the

networks and how their existence was communicated could be crucial in how they

were perceived by its members. This may have been the reason why many

professionals’ commitment was problematic: they saw it as someone telling them to

260 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

network with other schools. A further aspect which complicated this perception was

to do with the competitive educational culture in England, in which neighboring

schools compete for pupils and their performance is measured in league tables.

Elisabeth, as other survey respondents, cited this as a barrier to collaborating in local

networks. Professional commitment to the Learning Networks was also weakened

when staff had experienced other networks which they viewed as better value than

the Learning Networks, for instance as Mark valued the Beacon school initiative.

That allegiance to the Learning Networks was not black-and-white was

demonstrated by the significant proportion of school professionals who seemed to

be non-committal about the value of Learning Networks at the time of completing

the survey. For instance, a third of the respondents (35%, n = 119) were neutral

about whether the Learning Networks were improving their practice and pupils’

experience (31%, n = 116). Other aspects such as ‘‘transforming the way’’

professionals worked, ‘‘help with day-to-day problems’’ or ‘‘being able to draw on

network colleagues’ expertise’’ were also rated neutral by about the third of the

respondents (39%, 31% and 34% n = 200, 203, 198). There is no way of knowing

whether these professionals tended to be neutral because they were dubious about

the Learning Networks’ potential in these areas or whether they had a more non-

committal, ‘let’s see what happens,’ attitude. Clearly, the network activities and

their access to them were crucial in how they were perceived by staff.

3. Activities and relationships

As demonstrated above in the general findings section, access to network activities

was clearly a problem for many professionals with not enough opportunities being

available for staff. The access pattern for the majority of school professionals, even if

they accessed at least one Learning Network activity, was more sporadic than that of

a sustained nature. There was also a considerable number of professionals for whom

networked CPD had not extended the variety of school-based CPD provision. Just

slightly less than a third of the respondents (30%, n = 159) claimed that networked

CPD did not bring any variety to their professional development and another third

gained (35%) little variety. Mark, for instance commented on the difficulty of

knowing about network opportunities. Or, as another professional put it:

It is a good idea to offer support to teachers but not all teachers are receiving

information or contact with the network (primary school professional).

Professionals in support roles were particularly under-provided for by the

Learning Networks. In addition, as Elisabeth’s example showed and others

commented on, the Learning Network boundaries, as opposed to the previous

city-wide provision, could also limit opportunities:

smaller units are less effective than building on previous whole authority work

(secondary school professional).

The introduction of the Learning Networks coincided with a loss in the subject

service provision of the local authority, which especially affected the secondary

phase professionals, and in turn, these professionals’ perceptions of the Learning

Networks, such as that of Elisabeth.

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 261

123

Both Mark and Elisabeth experienced network activities in the form of network

groups, which were not relevant to their needs, confirmed by about a third of

surveyed professionals who felt that networked-CPD opportunities were of no or

little relevance to them (10 and 20% respectively, n = 131):

Some events have been worthwhile and I can see the advantages drawing on

the experiences of other schools. However, to my knowledge, there have been

no events related to my subject; prior to the LN [Learning Network], there

were regular coordinators’ meetings (primary school professional).

The fact that almost half of the respondents (48%, n = 203) disagreed with the

statement that the Learning Networks were able to help them with day-to-day

problems implies that for these professionals, the support was to be found within their

school boundaries. In many instances, lack of relevance was to do with the quality of

facilitation.

4. Facilitation

Both Mark and Elisabeth highlighted that in their network group, facilitation was

more incidental and unplanned, usually thrust upon the shoulders of a busy

practitioner who had an already full workload (see this in contrast with Louise’s

example where there was a paid facilitator or that of Maria where the facilitators

seemed to offer valuable expertise). Other respondents also emphasized that the

quality of the facilitator was essential for the efficiency of networking. They felt that

the network facilitator could only work to full capacity if resourced by the network

either in the form of release and preparation time or if paid as an external consultant.

5. Funding

Both Mark and Elisabeth perceived lack of funding as an issue in their network

experiences. They both experienced either a previous local authority provision for

their CPD needs or other network initiatives which were better resourced either in

terms of time release for networking or paid subject consultants and more CPD

opportunities. Time and resources as well as being able to schedule network

activities across the local network schools during a mutually appropriate time were

also seen as barriers to networking by many survey respondents.

In summary, this scenario highlighted the context in which the Learning Networks

did not create professional development opportunities for school professionals which

were conducive to collaboration and shared learning even though their school

environments were supportive with regards to collaboration. Networked-CPD in

these instances was not found to be valuable or relevant to these professionals. It did

not match their school and individual professional needs either because of the lack of

opportunities or because the quality of the activities were less than expected. Lack of

purpose, time, resources and facilitation were major barriers to effective networking,

together with the perception that the Learning Networks compelled professionals to

network together with local schools rather than growing out of a common need.

There was also a more structural issue with professionals not being able to access

opportunities beyond their Network’s boundary, especially where previously they

were able to draw on city-wide support. Common to a number of case studies, these

262 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

negative encounters could be largely influenced by previous experiences in different

network contexts, especially when professionals felt that these previous networks

were much better resourced than the Learning Networks. Interestingly, negative

network experiences did not mean that professionals did not value or seek inter-

school collaboration. The qualitative accounts suggested that they did take the

initiative to find other networks, whether local or national, formal or informal, in

order to fulfil their professional development needs. The inverse situation, i.e. having

a positive ‘outside-in’ (network) learning experience but a lack of ‘inside-out’

(school) experience, is discussed in the next section.

Tension between positive network experiences and school-based CPD

The qualitative interview data also illuminated a potential scenario in which school

professionals were able to benefit from the activities of the Learning Network, despite

the fact that they could not bring this learning back to school. The conduit between the

two forms of CPD missed reciprocity. There was a disjointness between the ‘outside-

in’ (network) and ‘inside-out’ (school) learning. One such example is given below:

Ken is a Geography coordinator in a junior school in the city. Previously, he was the

sports links and literacy coordinator. As literacy coordinator he went to literacy

meetings held by the local authority in local schools, which he described as

information briefings in spirit. A lot of resources that were promoted were not relevant

to the school. Ken’s school holds staff meetings where they give 3-min feedback on

CPD training. He found that most if his developments had come from his own school

colleagues rather than the authority training. When the Head of geography at the

nearby secondary school in the Learning Network contacted him whether they wanted

to take part in a topical geography project, he said yes. The project was successful. It

went on for a year with the junior children together with other primary schools visiting

the secondary school for the activities. The project brought together other

professionals such as artists, not just teachers from his own school. As a result of

this network project, he had better links with the school staff in the network, a stronger

liaison between practitioners. Ken felt that he could just ring up other school staff if he

had an idea for another project now. He also felt that the network training was more

relevant to the needs of teachers in schools. But despite the project’s success, he felt

that it was a little isolated. The project was with Year 6 children whereas in his school

he was teaching Year 4 children. He couldn’t really use the ideas he got from the

network and it wasn’t easy to bring things back as the school staff were very structured

about what they taught; the rest of his school’s staff could not really get involved.

Ken’s example was slightly different from the other case studies in that his

network experience was a project that involved children directly and not

professionals’ CPD. In this case, the network themes such as purpose, facilitation,

activities and relationship between members received less focus as the work

concentrated on pupils from different schools working together. His positive

network experience was due to the fact that he experienced first-hand benefits on his

pupils. One of these benefits was that Year 6 pupils became more familiar with the

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 263

123

secondary school environment, which was to help their transition to the secondary

school in Year 7. Ken’s previous local authority CPD provision did not inspire or

motivate him to try out new ideas or develop his teaching; he found the

transmissive-type training not to be relevant to his practice. He claimed that most of

his teaching innovations came from his colleagues within the school. What Ken’s

network experience highlighted was the isolation he experienced as a result of this

project. In contrast with Maria and Louise, who had a team structure or was able to

co-attend network groups, Ken was not able to do so. He felt isolated and could not

embed the activities in geography in his school, partly because of a full school

timetable, whose rigidity did not allow professionals to innovate and change

practice and partly because of a gap between his network and his school teaching

role (Year 6 and 4 children, respectively). Feeling isolated also suggested that, in

contrast to Maria who was able to discuss network activities with her close

colleague both formally and informally once back in her school, Ken missed out on

this important dialogue which would have made it easier to find ways to implement

and try out network ideas within his own school.

Various other studies have described within-school isolation as an issue for

professional development. For instance, De Lima (2003) examined student teachers

experiencing isolation when in placements in secondary schools which had

departments that were collaborative only on the surface. This study found that

socialization into the profession reinforced bad patterns and demotivated young

trainee teachers, and as a consequence they did not collaborate. Both Siskin (1991)

and Bakkenes et al. (1999) identified departments within schools as important units

for teacher collaboration, and so studied professionals experiencing isolation

positioned at the perimeter of these units. Clearly, Ken’s experience strikes a chord

with these studies in that in his role as a geography coordinator, he was operating as

a sole professional who did not have the chance to conduct professional dialogue

with close working colleagues teaching in the same subject area.

In summary, this scenario described the interplay between school-based and

networked-CPD in which there was a learning opportunity for the professional at the

level of the network, but which did not affect their practice at the school level. The

synergy of interplay was lost due to a rigid school environment, a mismatch between

the domain of network impact and school role (in this case to do with school year),

and a lack of opportunities for professional dialogue and intra-school collaboration.

Conclusion

Most of the literature deals with either examining the benefits of a particular CPD

programme (which can be a networked experience) or explores the point of view of

individuals as they benefit from CPD in general. Literature examined demonstrated

that collaborative and networked CPD has shown to benefit professional practice whilst

also outlining the conditions in which these forms were successful. The Learning

Networks study aimed at collecting professionals’ experiences in a specific networked

learning context in order to see how they experiences Learning Network activities

and what it meant for their practice through a survey and semi-structured interviews.

264 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

As evidenced by the general survey findings, for a number of professionals, the

Learning Networks offered access to a varied, relevant CPD provision, and who in

turn benefited from the network groups. However, there was also a sizeable group in

the network schools who either did not have access to network activities or even if

they did, they did not always find the provision which was relevant to their needs or

offered as great a variety of CPD as in the previous local authority CPD model.

Given the low response rate in the survey, it was also the case that experiences of a

sizeable group were not collected, and therefore reasons for their non-response is

not known, but it is more likely that access to network activities has not filtered

down to their level at the time of the research.

Rather than examining school-based and networked-CPD in separate forms, this

study came to realize that perceptions of CPD in the Learning Networks was

influenced by the way school professionals located their experiences of Learning

Networks in the context of their own school-based CPD experiences. To this end,

Turbill’s model of professional learning (2002) was applied in a networked context,

where the intersection under focus was the interplay between school and networked

CPD. Findings have therefore been analyzed in a way that highlight the nature and

quality of interplay in these two modes as experienced by the individual

professionals and presented using the themes of educational networks as identified

by Lieberman and Grolnick (1996).

In the first scenario, positive interplay between the two forms meant that the

professional experienced the Learning Network as something that enhanced their

practice: they were able to gain and integrate new knowledge and skills within their

practice, both because their network provided relevant professional learning and

both because they were then able to embed it within their school practice. The paper

gave a detailed analysis at both ends which made this possible such as a supportive

learning culture in the school with colleagues closely working and collaborating

together. It was also the case that a lack of interplay or tension operated between the

boundaries of school-based and networked-CPD. In some instances of this,

professionals’ Learning Network experiences were negative. Reasons for this

included a lack of purpose, feeling compelled to network, irrelevant network

activities, lack of quality facilitation and a lack of resources and funding to be able

to network. In other instances, even if the professional’s network experience was

positive, aspects of the school environment have made it difficult to embed

outcomes once back at school. In these cases where there was a lack of interaction

between the two forms, interestingly teachers did not lose out on learning

opportunities inside-out and outside-in learning. They have relied on, sought out

other, or even initiated their own networks beyond the Learning Network.

This paper has applied a model of professional learning in an inter-school

collaboration context and Identified facilitators of and barriers to networked CPD

with regards to purpose, collaboration and commitment, activities, facilitation and

funding. Through case studies which located these experiences in professionals’

school context, the emergent finding was that positive school culture and intra-school

collaboration were seen as important for the success of networked CPD as the quality

of networked CPD itself. What these findings imply is that professional learning

occurs best when there is a positive interplay between school-based and external,

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 265

123

such as, networked, professional development. As the research data suggested,

however, nurturing such an environment of positive interplay, is a complex and

challenging task. This points to the need of having a good, well-resourced facilitator

whose role is pivotal in helping establish an environment in which teacher learners

can make connections between internal and external learning, and so move towards

sustained professional learning (Hoban 2002).

Acknowledgments The Liverpool Learning Networks Research project was funded by Liverpool City

of Learning. The authors would like to thank all those school professionals who took their time to

contribute to the research, the two anonymous reviewers whose valuable comments helped shape and

structure the paper to its final form, and to Robin Sellers (design) and Amanda Atkinson (administration)

for their support.

Appendix 1

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Individual

staff returns (excluding

headteachers)

a Includes all phases

up to primary (nursery,

infants, junior and

primary)b Includes SMT and

teachers with SMT

responsibilities

Number

of surveys

sent out

Number of

surveys

returned (n)

Response rate

(per individual)

(%)

Primarya teaching staffb

(incl SMT)

863 108 13

Primary support staff 557 24 4

Primary sub-total 1,420 132 9

Secondary teaching staff 288 36 13

Secondary support staff 128 11 9

Secondary sub-total 416 47 11

Special needs teaching staff 109 11 10

Special needs support staff 60 2 3

Special needs sub-total 169 13 8

Missing details (phase or role) – 61 n/a

Total 2,005 253 13

Table 5 Respondents by role and phase—school professional survey 2007

School phase Total %

Primary Secondary Special Unknown

Senior management 36 6 4 4 50 25

SMT and teacher 35 13 5 5 58 29

Teacher 37 17 2 2 58 29

Classroom support 14 4 0 2 20 10

Other 10 7 0 0 17 8

Total 132 47 11 13 203 100

Missing details 50

Total 253

266 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

Appendix 2

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 267

123

268 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 269

123

References

Bakkenes, I., De Brabander, C., & Imants, J. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication network

analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–202.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Doing qualitative research in educational settings.

270 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123

Bell, M., Cordingley, P., & Mitchell, H. (2006). The impact of networks on pupils, practitioners,organisations and the communities they serve. Nottingham: NCSL: Coventry: CUREE.

Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes

professional development effective. The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45–68.

Brown, S., Edmonds, S., & Lee, B. (2001). Continuing professional development: LEA and schoolsupport for teachers (LGA research report 23). Slough: NFER.

Burrell, B., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London:

Heinemann.

Campbell, A. (2000). Fictionalising research data as a way of increasing teachers’ access to school-

focused research. Research in Education, 63, 81–88.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-

multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. EducationalResearcher, 32(6), 3–12.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., & Firth, A. (2005b). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom

teaching and learning. Review: What do teacher impact data tell us about collaborative CPD?

London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom

teaching and learning. How does collaborative CPD for teachers of the 5–16 age range affect

teaching and learning? Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social

Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005a). 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? London:

EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.

De Lima, J. A. (2003). Trained for isolation: The impact of departmental cultures on student teachers’

views and practices of collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29(3), 197–217.

Duncombe, R., & Armour, K. M. (2004). Collaborative professional learning: From theory to practice.

Journal of In-service Education, 30(1), 141–166.

Earl, L., Katz, S., Elgie, S., Ben Jaafar, S., & Foster, L. (2006). How networked learning communitieswork, final report of the three-year external evaluation of the Networked Learning Communities

programme. Nottingham: NCSL. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/nlc.

Earley, P., & Bubb, S. (2004). Leading and managing continuing professional development: Developingpeople, developing schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & Mckinney, S. (2007). Teachers’ continuing professional

development: Contested concepts, understandings and models. Journal of In-Service Education,33(2), 153–169.

Gilbert, C. (2006). 2020 vision: Report of the teaching and learning in 2020 review group. Report for theDfES. UK: Department for Education and Skills. now called Department for Children, Schools and

Families.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). The emotions of teaching and educational change. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.),

Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 278–290).

Dordrecht: Springer.

Hoban, G. J. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach.

Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Hutchings, M., Smart, S., James, K. & Williams, K. (2006). GTC (General teaching council) Survey ofteachers 2006. Final report. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from www.gtce.org.uk.

Jackson, D. (2007). Networked learning communities: Collaboration by design. In N. Gallagher &

S. Parker (Eds.), The collaborative state: How working together can transform public services(pp. 87–97). London: Demos. (Collection 23). Retrieved 20 May, 2009 from www.demos.co.uk.

Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications (3rd ed.).

New York: Wiley.

Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: Shaping the future of teacher development.

Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 221–227.

J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272 271

123

Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers CollegeRecord, 98(1), 8–45.

Liverpool, L. A. (2004). Liverpool learning networks: Guidance for schools. Liverpool: Liverpool Local

Authority document.

McCotter, S. (2001). Collaborative groups as professional development. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17, 685–704.

McDonald, J., & Klein, E. J. (2003). Networking for teacher learning: Toward a theory of effective

design. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1606–1621.

Morrison, K. R. B. (1993). Planning and accomplishing school-centred evaluation. Norfolk: Peter Francis

Publishers.

NCSL (National College for School Leadership). (2009). (n.d.) Networked learning communities:Learning about learning networks. Publication from the Networked Learning Communities

Programme. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk.

Nisbet, J., & Watt, J., (1984). Case study. In J. Bell, T. Bush, A. Fox, J. Goodey & S. Goulding (Eds.),

Conducting small-scale investigations in educational management (pp. 79–92). London: Harper

and Row.

O’Brien, M., Burton, D., Campbell, A., Qualter, A., & Varga-Atkins, T. (2008a). How are the perceptions

of learning networks amongst school professionals shaped at an early stage in their introduction?

What does this mean for their implementation? International Review of Education, 54(2), 211–242.

O’Brien, M., Varga-Atkins, T., & Qualter, A. (2008b). The Liverpool learning networks: Developing,deepening, delivering. Final report of the Liverpool learning networks research project. Liverpool:

The University of Liverpool for Liverpool City of Learning.

Reeves, J., Turner, E., Morris, B., & Forde, C. (2003). Culture and concepts of school leadership and

management: Exploring the impact of CPD on aspiring headteachers. School Leadership &Management, 23(1), 5–24.

Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world (G. Walsh & F. Lehnert, Trans.). Evanston, IL:

North Western University Press. (Original German work published 1932).

Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 134–160.

Staff survey. (2007). School professionals’ perceptions of the Liverpool Learning Networks: follow-upquestionnaire. Survey. Liverpool: Liverpool Learning Networks Research.

Strathdee, R. (2007). School improvement, pre-service teacher education and the construction of social

networks in New Zealand and England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(1), 19–33.

Tempest, S., & Starkey, K. (2004). The effects of liminality on individual and organizational learning.

Organization Studies, 25(4), 507–527.

Turbill, J. (2002). The role of facilitator in a professional learning system: The Frameworks project. In G.

J. Hoban (Ed.), Teacher learning for educational change (pp. 94–114). Buckingham; Philadelphia:

Open University Press.

Varga-Atkins, T., Qualter, A., & O’Brien, M. (2009). School professionals’ attitudes to professional

development in a networked context: Developing the model of ‘believers, seekers and sceptics’.

Professional Development in Education, 35(3), 321–340.

272 J Educ Change (2010) 11:241–272

123