improving schoolteachers' workplace learning

This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]On: 08 October 2014, At: 09:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Papers in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

Improving schoolteachers' workplacelearningHeather Hodkinson & Phil Hodkinsona University of Leeds , UKb School of Continuing Education , University of Leeds , Leeds, LS29JT, UK E-mail:Published online: 18 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Heather Hodkinson & Phil Hodkinson (2005) Improving schoolteachers'workplace learning, Research Papers in Education, 20:2, 109-131, DOI: 10.1080/02671520500077921

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520500077921

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02671520500077921

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520500077921

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research Papers in EducationVol. 20, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 109–131

ISSN 0267-1522 (print)/ISSN 1470-1146 (online)/05/020109–23© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI: 10.1080/02671520500077921

Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learningHeather Hodkinson* and Phil HodkinsonUniversity of Leeds, UKTaylor and Francis LtdRRED107775.sgm10.1080/02671520500077921Research Papers in Education0267-1522 (print)/1470-1146 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Ltd202000000June 2005HeatherHodkinsonSchool of Continuing EducationUniversity of LeedsLeedsLS2 [email protected]

This paper is set in the context where there is a policy emphasis on teacher learning and develop-ment in a number of countries as a means towards school improvement. It reports on a longitudi-nal research project about the workplace learning of English secondary school teachers, carried outbetween 2000 and 2003. This was part of a Teaching and Learning Research Programme networkof projects looking at learning in a variety of workplaces. The paper contrasts some key features inthe teacher development and workplace learning literatures, which highlight different understand-ings of learning—as acquisition, participation and/or construction. We argue that insights from theliterature and the research, including insights from other projects in the network, enhance ourunderstanding of teacher learning. The paper describes some of the main ways in which experi-enced teachers learn, and then identifies three dimensions which interact in influencing the natureof that learning. The dimensions are: the dispositions of the individual teacher; the practices andcultures of the subject departments; and the management and regulatory frameworks, at schooland national policy levels. Based upon the findings, we argue that current policy approaches toteacher development in the UK are over-focused on the acquisition of measurable learningoutcomes, short-term gains, and priorities that are external to the teachers. They also assume andstrive for impossible and counterproductive universality of approach. Instead, our findings suggestthat teacher learning is best improved through a strategy that increases learning opportunities, andenhances the likelihood that teaches will want to take up those opportunities. This can be donethrough the construction of more expansive learning environments for teachers. We examinebriefly some barriers to this approach, and give some suggestions of what could be done.

Keywords: Continuing professional development; Expansive learning environments; Learning cultures; Teachers’ learning; Teachers’ professional development; Workplace learning

Introduction

In many parts of the world, including the UK, improving the performance of teach-ers is a high priority in education policy, and improving and increasing teachers’

*Corresponding author: School of Continuing Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT,UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4

110 H. Hodkinson and P. Hodkinson

job-related learning is seen as one of the main ways of achieving this improvement.In this paper we focus on ways in which teacher learning could be improved. Ourapproach to improvement is constructed upon a research-based understanding ofhow teachers learn. We argue firstly that policies towards teacher development atthe time of our research were based upon erroneous assumptions about how teach-ers learn, what learning is, and how it can be improved. Secondly, we confirm andendorse much existing teacher development research, in claiming that individualteachers’ personal professional development has to be taken seriously, and ideallyenhanced. Thirdly, we argue that the teacher development literature has not yetfully come to grips with the significance of everyday working practices for teacherlearning. We draw upon our research and upon literature, primarily in the work-place learning field, to suggest what this might mean for understanding teachers’learning. Fourthly, we propose a mechanism for considering individual teachers’professional dispositions and school and departmental working practices, in improv-ing teacher learning. Central to this approach is the concept of ‘expansive learningenvironments’, developed by Fuller and Unwin (2003, 2004). Finally, we providesome illustrative suggestions as to how this approach might be operationalised at avariety of levels. Though our analysis is firmly grounded in empirical evidence, at itsheart lie deep-seated, ultimately philosophical, disputes about what learning is.

For the authors, this paper is the culmination of several years of research, and drawsupon a now considerable volume of our other writings. We have tried to make andsupport the arguments here clearly and appropriately, without either duplicating whatwe have published elsewhere, or greatly exceeding the already fairly generous wordlength allowed by this journal. Therefore, some of the supporting research evidenceand colour has had to be referenced rather than described in detail. We have howeverincluded some exemplar illustrations from the data, to clarify what we mean.

The paper follows a fairly conventional sequence, beginning with an account ofthe ways in which teacher learning is addressed and understood, in the policycontext, in the teacher development literature and in the workplace learning litera-ture. This is followed by a short description of the research project that providedthe main empirical evidence, then our synthesis of what the research evidencefrom the project reveals. We conclude with some implications for the improvementof teacher learning. The analysis of existing policy approaches and of the mainrelevant research literatures is important to the final synthesis. It neither precedesthat synthesis as the paper structure implies, nor is it a post hoc rationalisation forwhat we claim. The argument was developed through iteration between analysis ofexisting literature and new evidence.

Approaches to teacher learning

In looking at teacher learning we have first to consider what is meant by learningand how it is understood. There are three competing underlying metaphors whicheach deeply influence this. Sfard (1998) focuses on tensions between metaphors ofacquisition and of participation. Hager (in press) contrasts both of these with a third

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning 111

metaphor of construction. As we will show below, policy approaches to learning havetended to assume a crude version of learning as acquisition. The teacher develop-ment literature critiques such approaches within a predominantly constructionmetaphor (if not necessarily constructivist), whilst the workplace learning literaturelargely develops a view of learning as participation. (See the 2005 Teaching andLearning Research Programme special issue of The Curriculum Journal, volume 16,number 1, for a fuller discussion of metaphors of learning and learning outcomes indifferent sectors of education.) We broadly agree with Sfard (1998, p. 12) that ‘Wehave to accept that the metaphors we use while theorising may be good enough to fitsmall areas, but none of them suffice to cover the entire field’. However, for schoolteachers’ learning, a combination of construction and participation provides a wayof understanding learning that best fits the current research evidence, and is mostlikely to maximise possibilities for improving teacher learning in the future.

Policy approaches: acquisition and technical rationality

The contemporary climate for educational policy in many parts of the world is linkedto wider social and political movements. (See Helsby, 1999, for a detailed analysis ofthese pressures within the English context.) Two major trends have been dominantin much Western practice over the last 20 years: the 1980s ideology of markets andcompetition, and the growth of what has sometimes been termed ‘the new manageri-alism’, which is found in many employment contexts, including the public sector(Avis et al., 1996). This is related to what Power (1997) termed the ‘Audit Society’,with its emphasis on financial accountability, measured outputs and value formoney. It is within this ideological framework that the English government has triedto improve teacher learning. Two examples from within our research data illustratethis approach. One was the introduction of a performance management scheme(Department for Education and Employment [DfEE], 2000). This involved eachteacher agreeing measurable targets for development annually with a designated linemanager. The second was a nationwide scheme to train teachers to make better useof computers in their work. Whatever their existing expertise all teachers had to gothrough a standardised, though subject specific, training package, using computer-based distance-learning materials.

The policy approach that encompassed these examples adopted a deep-seated viewof learning as acquisition. That is, learning means acquiring knowledge and/or skillsthat were previously absent. It focused on assumed deficits in the current knowledgeand skills of individual teachers, and saw what was to be learned as commodifiedcontent. The commodity could be clearly identified and therefore the extent to whichit had been successfully acquired could be measured. All this works well within adeeply technically rational audit culture, where the main mechanism for policymaking and management has become a particular type of efficiency model, establish-ing and continually improving ‘value for money’. The problems with such a view oflearning have been revealed in a considerable literature that can only be brieflyalluded to here. Firstly, learning is seen as instrumental. The sense of learning as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


personal growth, and self-actualisation, is lost. Learning can no longer be seen as‘lighting fires’ (Stenhouse, 1975).

Secondly, by focusing on the content to be acquired, this approach epitomises theworst elements of what Bereiter (2002) identified as the ubiquitous but completelyinadequate ‘folk theory’ of learning—that learning consists of placing ‘stuff’(content) into vessels (human brains)—it marginalises and fails to take account ofthe many and complex processes by which teachers learn (see below). Such a view oflearning excludes what research has identified as the main ways in which people,including teachers, actually learn at work. For example, as we have argued elsewhere(Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004a), this view assumes that any worthwhile learning isintentional and planned, and focuses on content which is known about—that is, thecommodity pre-exists the learning. Yet much learning in the workplace is unplannedand unintentional—a corollary to engagement in activities for which the primepurpose is not learning. Much is the ongoing development and refinement of existingpractice and some is learning how to do something that has not been done before:meeting unforseen circumstances, challenges and problems (Engeström, 2001,2004). For teachers, one example of this is teaching a newly introduced syllabus, fora new and untested examination.

These shortcomings mean that such policy approaches to teacher development areunlikely to be widely successful, even in their own terms. Furthermore, our researchrevealed that they created problems for teachers and teacher learning.

Research approaches: construction or participation?

In the research literature there is less emphasis on learning as acquisition. There is anextensive literature on teacher development or continuing professional development,which is paralleled by a long-established literature on workplace learning, but therehas been very limited connection between the two. As teacher learning is an exampleof workplace learning, we argue that a combination of some of the insights from thatworkplace literature, with some of the main strengths within the teacher developmentliterature, can provide the foundation for a more productive approach to understand-ing and improving teacher learning.

There are some similarities but also some differences in the ways in which eachliterature has developed. Teacher development grew out of a view expressed, forexample, in the James Report (Department of Education and Science, 1972), which,as Hustler et al. (2003) remind us, focused on the in-service education of teachers, asa means of developing their knowledge and skills. It emphasised teacher learningwhich took place away from work, on taught courses. On the other hand, the work-place learning literature has always tended to look upon formal learning as largelyinadequate (e.g. Engeström, 1984; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and concentrated on waysin which workers learn through what are often termed more informal processes(Scribner & Cole, 1973; Watkins & Marsick, 1993; Beckett & Hager, 2002).

The two literatures intersect in the writings of Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) andSchön (1983, 1987) on reflective practice. For a significant period both literatures,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


but perhaps especially teacher development (Zeichner, 1994), saw this corpus ofwork as a means of escaping technically rational assumptions of planned learning.More recently, writers within both literatures have been more critical of Schön’swork. For example, Day (1999) argues that reflection-in-action is too restrictive as abasis for teacher development, that reflection is never entirely rational, and that evenreflection-on-action lacks a necessary critical edge, that comes best from externalsources. Beckett and Hager (2002), writing about workplace learning, argue thatreflection is a predominantly backward looking activity, and is too cerebral a concept.They argue that what they prefer to term ‘judgement making’ is embodied. That is,it entails emotion and practice as well as reason. It also involves a combination offeedback (reflection) and feedforward—anticipation. What these literatures share is aview of the learner as a holistic embodied person, for whom learning is essentially amatter of construction (Hager, in press). That is, learning is essentially concernedwith changing the learner—constructing a developing and hopefully improvingteacher through engagement with the process of learning.

In moving beyond reflection, both literatures are also striving to move beyondpurely individual views of learning. This is less well developed in the teacher devel-opment literature, but some clear pointers have been established. Hargreaves (1992,1994) explored ways in which different types of school culture influenced teacherdevelopment. He came down clearly in favour of collaborative cultures as providingthe richest developmental opportunities, but stressed that they could not be‘contrived’. Day (1999) builds upon Hargreaves’s work, arguing that ‘school cultureprovides positive or negative support for its teachers’ learning’ (1999, p. 77) and goeson to advocate the value of networks, in facilitating the development of the profes-sional self. Harris (2001) also shows that departmental cultures are significant ininfluencing teacher development. However, there remains a tendency to see learningas an essentially individual constructive act, albeit one that is strongly enhancedby collaboration and by external contacts. Day (1999, p. 36) shows that ‘Manyresearchers have emphasised that … teachers have a store of “personal and practicalknowledge” which is shaped by past experiences; and that making this explicit is ameans by which teachers can take control of their development’. He argues that bothaction research and a narrative approach can help in such a constructive process,though both have their limitations. Retallick (1999) advocates the use of portfolios,to recognise and enhance individual teachers’ ongoing learning.

However, none of these writers fully explores the processual links between cultureand learning. This may be partly because the teacher literature focuses on develop-ment—either as personal professional growth (Day, 1999; Goodson, 2003) or asimprovement in the practice of teaching (DfEE, 2001; Ingvarson, 2002). However,there is an extensive literature about the processes of learning in workplaces moregenerally. Two key ideas are widely established yet appear to be under-recognisedin the teacher development literature. The first is that learning is an integral part ofeveryday workplace practices, though it is richer in some workplaces than others,and richer for some workers than others. Thus, for example, Lave and Wenger(1991) talk about learning as integrally involved in belonging—that is, becoming a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


full member of a workplace community of practice. Alternatively, activity theorists(e.g. Billett, 2001a, 2002, 2004; Engeström, 1999, 2001, 2004) see workplaceactivities as the root of learning and explore, through theory and research, theprocesses involved. The second key idea is that workplace learning is a predomi-nantly social and cultural process, where individual learning, if it is examined at all,is seen as but a small and integral part of something much wider (Lave & Wenger,1991; Wenger, 1998; Engeström, 1999). As Sfard (1998) identified, at the heart ofboth these key ideas lies the view that learning is primarily concerned with partici-pation—in workplace activities (Billet, 2001a) and activity systems (Engeström,1999, 2001), or in workplaces as living social communities—in communities ofpractice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This participatory approach is almost the reverseof the common approach in teacher development, and is in some ways almost asproblematic. For this time, the individual learner (teacher, in our case) is over-looked. Since the turn of the millennium, a growing body of workplace research hasbeen working to re-emphasise individual learning, but without losing the social andcultural perspective (Billett, 2001b; Weber, 2001; Hodkinson et al., 2004). Ourempirical research findings suggest that combining the perspectives of learning associal and workplace participation, and those of learning as personal construction isintellectually possible and points towards more effective ways of understanding andimproving that learning.

The research in question investigated how some secondary school teachers inEngland learned at work, and considered, as a result, ways in which that learningcould be enhanced. The study was part of a network of five projects, which looked atworkplace learning in different settings, as part of Phase I of the Economic and SocialResearch Council’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme.1 Our findings andthe interpretation of our data have drawn on insights from the other four projects. Wewill briefly outline the research, and our findings about how teachers learn, identify-ing three underlying dimensions which affect their learning. This leads on to the ideaof expansive and restrictive learning environments. We will discuss how the expansivelearning environment provides a positive framework for improving teacher learningand development.

The research project

In looking at the school as a site for workplace learning we carried out longitudinalcase studies between 2000 and 2003 of the teachers in four subject departments oftwo English secondary schools. The departments were selected as being small enoughfor us to study all teachers within them, and as being accessible to us, and willing towork with us for the duration of the fieldwork. This effectively provided a mix ofgender, age, experience and commitment. In practice, the criteria excluded largedepartments, like English, science and mathematics, and meant that we only hadaccess to relatively successful departments. The actual departments studied wereInformation Technology, Art, Music and History. Both schools took pupils from theage of 11 to 18 years, but one had a rural catchment and the other a mixed catchment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


within a major city. The research data include: documentary evidence from nationalbodies, schools, departments and individual teachers on staff development and learn-ing matters; observation within the schools, and particularly of the teachers workingin their departments; and up to three semi-structured interviews with each teacherabout their career history and learning as a teacher. Nineteen teachers, four studentteachers and two senior teachers were directly involved in the research. There wereover 50 transcribed interviews and over 50 days of observation. Fieldwork extendedover six school terms (two years) with alternate terms being spent in each school. Wealso held meetings with the schools to seek feedback about emerging findings, halfway through the research and near the end. Each phase of fieldwork was informed byemerging findings from the previous phase and by insights from our sister projects.Data was visited and revisited in the light of developing ideas and theory. Weconstructed narratives of individual teachers’ learning (Hodkinson & Hodkinson,2003, 2004c); analysed the cultures and practices of each department (Hodkinson &Hodkinson, 2004b), and then considered the data as a whole. This article reports onthe final analysis phase.

Ways in which teachers learn at work

The research revealed many varied and complex forms of teacher learning. Forconvenience these have been grouped into individual and collaborative activity, eachof which may or may not have been planned.

Individual learning

Teachers often learn through their own individual teaching activities. In particularthey are constantly adjusting and modifying their practice, in response to actions,reactions, interactions and activities in the classroom, and in anticipation ofapproaching situations. The teachers in our study found this sort of learning verydifficult to describe. Common attempts included ‘You learn most by getting on withthe job’ and ‘You learn by trial and error’. Eraut (1994) distinguishes between the hotaction of the classroom, and cold action, where teachers consider what to do whenoutside the immediacy of the classroom. Following Day (1999) and Beckett andHager (2002), we see reflection as too limited a means of understanding what suchlearning involves. Though they didn’t use these terms, what the teachers told usresembled Beckett and Hager’s (2002) embodied judgement making.

As well as ongoing experience, many teachers learn because of imposed externalchange, such as new curricula and assessments or new teaching materials. Long-accumulated values, beliefs and practices influence what they do and how they learn.Feeding in to all of this may be external ideas learned from attendance at courses,through reading, through use of the Internet, and through noticing things that arerelevant for their work in a variety of situations. For example the art teachers gainedideas from diverse experiences ranging from visiting an exhibition to observing aninteresting pattern of tree bark in the school grounds. Individual teacher learning can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


be opportunistic and serendipitous, or there may be a deliberate intention to learnsomething new.

Teachers learn from other people (fellow teachers, pupils, student teachers andpeople outside work). Sometimes this remains a fairly individual process, but often itcan be better characterised by our second category of learning, collaboration.

Collaborative learning

A significant proportion of teacher learning occurs through collaborative interactionswith others. In English secondary schools the subject department is a significant loca-tion for such collaboration, and we will revisit this later. Sometimes, collaborationcrosses departmental boundaries, for example through friendships with other teach-ers, or working groups, like pastoral care teams, which cut across departmental struc-tures. Many teachers value collaborative learning opportunities outside their ownschool, but these happen more often for relatively senior staff. Thus the head ofmusic, as an Advanced Skills Teacher, spent a proportion of his time working withteachers in other schools, and running courses at a local teachers’ centre. The headof art moderated examination course work in other schools. The head of historyvalued an annual history teachers’ conference, both for the subject presentations andfor conversations with other history teachers. Organised courses can be a site forcollaborative as well as individual learning.

Collaborative learning includes conversation and discussion, observing and takingan interest in what others do, and joint activity. Joint activity can be relatively formal,for example in working groups tackling new projects, such as curriculum changes.Often, it is informal. In the art and music departments we observed all the teacherscontinually sharing ideas, and requesting and giving advice.

Collaborative learning could involve student teachers. Our data supports the viewthat trainees learn well when actively collaborating with more experienced teachers,both formally and informally. Experienced teachers can also learn through workingwith student teachers. Student teachers sometimes bring additional subject expertiseto a department. Also some student teachers brought computer expertise that olderteachers lacked. Observing the different strengths and weaknesses of trainees some-times triggered reflection and change in experienced teachers.

Planned learning

Whilst much of this learning, be it individual or collaborative, was informal in the sensethat it was ongoing, opportunistic, and incidental, teacher learning could also beplanned. Such planned learning was intentional, and involved undertaking activitiesprimarily intended for learning something new or different. For example, some of oursample became examiners for external boards, at least partly to learn to better preparetheir own pupils. At best this learning involved two stages—working with other exam-iners, and then working with their own departmental colleagues, sharing and devel-oping their insights. Many teachers attend courses and learning activities, short and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


long, in school or elsewhere. Teachers are fortunate in comparison with many otherworkers in that such courses are seen as a normal if occasional part of their work activ-ity. In the best circumstances a course can provide stimulation or new ideas whichmay allow development beyond the specifics of everyday practice (Day, 1999). On theother hand teachers frequently told us of short courses they had found a waste of time.Our data leads to the following observations about courses, which are reflected in thework of Hustler et al. (2003), Retallick et al. (1999), Day (1999) and others.

● Short courses result in effective learning if and when matters raised are taken backand further developed as part of ongoing practice;

● Short courses can be ineffective, if the teachers attending do not personally valuethe experience;

● Courses outside school premises are valuable in enabling contact and collaborationwith teachers and others in related but different situations;

● Courses run by staff within school may provide development opportunities forthose running sessions, but also make other staff aware of expertise within theschool, which they may access later;

● Long courses, such as initial training or masters’ degrees, sometimes have a deepand lasting influence on the ways in which teachers understand, see and approachtheir work.

The Performance Management Scheme introduced in English secondary schoolsover the period of our research (DfEE, 2000) is a recent example of planned learning.Teachers reacted very differently to this scheme. A few saw it as an opportunity tothink through their current situation, reflect and plan ahead, but many were cynical.It often engendered strategic compliance (Lacey, 1977) or even resistance. Then theimpact on learning was minimal and occasionally negative. The obsession with theshort term and the measurable excludes a great deal of effective and valuable teacherlearning that our research revealed (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004a).

Beneath this descriptive analysis of teachers’ workplace learning, our researchrevealed three underlying dimensions, each of which exerted a major influence on thenature of that learning, and upon the extent to which it was effective. They are: thedispositions and past experiences of individual teachers; the nature of school andmore particularly, departmental working cultures; and the impact of national andschool policy and regulation frameworks and interventions.

The impact of individual teacher’s dispositions on their learning

Throughout their lives, teachers develop and redevelop an ongoing sense of identitythat influences their work and learning (Day, 1999; Weber, 2001; Goodson, 2003).There is a vast and contested literature on the nature of identity. In order to focusmore directly on the link between person and practice, we prefer to use Bourdieu’s(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) concept of ‘habitus’. He argues that habitus consistsof a battery of dispositions that orientate an individual in any situation, and thusstrongly influence their actions and reactions. Dispositions are much more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


conceptual schemata, for they are embodied, involving emotions and practices, aswell as thoughts. Individuals are largely unaware of their dispositions, which graduallydevelop throughout their lives, and are strongly influenced by their position in theworld. They are relatively stable but can change, either by gradual evolution or, occa-sionally, through radical transformation. Bloomer and Hodkinson (2000) showed thesignificance of student dispositions in relation to their learning. Our research revealedthe significance of dispositions in teachers’ learning.

These dispositions are more fully described and analysed in Hodkinson andHodkinson (2003, 2004c). Here we briefly summarise three illustrative examples.Mary was head of art. Her learning was largely self-determined. Even if there wereunwelcome pressures to learn imposed from outside she usually managed to givethem her own meaning and transform them into something that she valued. Arequirement to teach literacy across the curriculum was initially seen as problematicby the art teachers. However Mary turned it into a positive development which wouldbenefit the note and sketch-books pupils had to produce for external examinations.As a creative person, Mary was constantly searching for new ideas and improvements,sometimes in a planned way, sometimes opportunistically. Her learning was rootedin her initial teacher training and her early experience in post-Plowden Report (1967)progressive primary teaching. This could be seen in the ways each piece of artworkwas treated as a project for the pupils. Also influential was a Masters Degree courseon art in the environment, which orientated her teaching approaches and her learn-ing. The established informal ongoing collaboration amongst the three art teachersaligned well with these dispositions, and led to effective teacher learning and teaching(Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2003).

Age and stage in career are known to influence teachers’ professional attitudes andpractices (Huberman, 1995), but the significance of dispositions goes deeper.Malcolm and Steve were both white, male teachers, of similar age and in mid-career,at same school. Both were judged by the school and the inspection system to beexcellent teachers. But their dispositions to learning were very different. HistorianMalcolm was cynical, having suffered several career setbacks. Steve, the head ofmusic, was dynamic and enthusiastic, pushing himself and others to learn more.Malcolm was dismissive of courses and identified his learning as individual andtaking place in the classroom and behind closed doors. Steve worked and learnedcollaboratively whenever he could. Much of his learning was intentional, and hedeveloped structured ways to improve his own learning, that of his colleagues, andthat of student teachers. Malcolm and Steve had very different reactions to theperformance management scheme. Steve saw it a new opportunity (though thisenthusiasm waned, as he had limited respect for his appointed line manager).Malcolm saw the process as a mechanism for managerial control. He would complyminimally where he perceived it to be necessary, for example for a pay increase (seeHodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004c, for more detail).

Hodkinson et al. (2004) show that the dispositions of teachers (and other workersfrom the other network projects) were significant for their learning in four overlappingways:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


● they bring prior knowledge, understanding and skills with them, which cancontribute to their future work and learning;

● their dispositions influence the ways in which they construct and take advantage ofopportunities for learning at work;

● working and belonging to a school and departmental community contributes to thedeveloping habitus and sense of identity of the teachers themselves;

● the dispositions of individual teachers contribute to the co-production and repro-duction of the departmental cultures where they work.

The last two points relate also to our second underlying dimension.

The impact of departmental cultures on teacher learning

Given the importance of academic subjects in the English secondary school curricu-lum and in teachers’ professional identities, it is unsurprising that departmentalcultures are significant in affecting teachers’ learning. All four departments in thisstudy had three to five teachers, and were deemed successful by their schools. Despitethese basic similarities, the departments had very different cultures, which stronglyinfluenced the learning of the teachers within them.

The departments differed in relation to the style of leadership and the degree ofinternal collaboration. The culture was not a direct reflection of the school. In therural school the art department worked collaboratively with subtle leadership,whereas IT was loosely integrated with more forceful leadership. In the city school themusic department worked collaboratively with forceful leadership, whilst history wasloosely integrated with subtle leadership.

By ‘subtle leadership’ we mean that the heads of department concerned advancedtheir ideas in low-key ways. Meanwhile the ‘forceful’ leaders showed an explicit andintentionally strong, high profile presence. By ‘loosely integrated’, we mean to conveythat staff in these departments got on with each other and worked together when therewas a specific need, but the underlying tendency was for independent working andlearning. They fell between Hargreaves’ (1994) categories of collaboration and indi-vidualism. In the case of IT, some members were as likely to collaborate with teachersoutside the department as within it.

There was effective teacher learning in all the departments, but in the collaborativedepartments teachers had an additional dimension to their learning which the otherslacked. There was an additional range of learning approaches available. At its bestlearning was ongoing whenever the teachers were together, through discussionconsultation and sharing of materials and ideas. In addition to using non-teachingtime they were happy to visit and learn from one another’s classrooms and lessons.The music teachers benefited additionally because of the explicit focus on theirdepartment’s ongoing development, led by the head of department, and supported byall its teachers, including student teachers.

Our data demonstrates complex interrelationships between individual teacherdispositions and departmental cultures. Each affects the other, and in turn affects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


teacher learning (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004b). However national policy andorganisational regulatory practices are an overlying third determinant of that learning.

The impact of school management and national policy and regulation on teacher learning

Network findings demonstrated that regulatory frameworks have a major influence onall workplace learning (Rainbird et al., 2004, in press). School management processesand national policy impact on teacher learning directly and indirectly. In our schools,the approaches of management were slightly but significantly different. One had asuccessful and charismatic head teacher. Teachers there seemed more contented withmanagement than their colleagues in the other school, and new initiatives, such as theperformance management scheme, were introduced in a positive way which causedless friction. There were the usual struggles over resources, but both departmentsthere felt valued and supported for much of the time. Teacher development wasemphasised. In the other school, management had been criticised in an inspectionreport just before our fieldwork commenced although the problems were officiallyovercome within two years. However part way through the research the head resigned,and was temporarily replaced by one of the deputies. Teachers here grumbled moreabout management. There was also a sense that some management-initiated processeswere not fully implemented. The structure for professional development was similarto the first school, but perceived as less well organised. The introduction of perfor-mance management, and some school organised in service training, generated someantagonism and dissatisfaction, which interfered with its functioning. These differ-ences were differences of degree. Overall there was a similarity of approach whichreflected the strength and frequency of government interventions and regulations.Consequently, it is to this that we devote most attention here.

There was frequent indirect pressure for teacher learning as a result of nationalpolicy. Government-led curriculum initiatives and changes were common. Thus, forexample, the introduction of Curriculum 2000 for older pupils caused major changesto external exams that teachers had to learn to implement.

Where policy affected teacher learning directly, it was based on the crude acquisitionmodel, identified earlier. However, for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) there wasinvestment in on the job support. In Lave and Wenger’s (1991) terms, they were recog-nised as legitimately peripheral participants who could be helped to become estab-lished teachers. Their learning was seen at least partly within a participation metaphor(Sfard, 1998), and there was an emphasis on participation-focused approaches, suchas in-school mentoring, in addition to short off the job courses, which sometimes couldbe applied directly in the work situation. For established teachers there were variousspecific initiatives targeted at areas where teacher proficiency was judged to beinadequate, such as the programme of compulsory computer training for all teachers.

Skill deficits are sometimes real, and teachers often want to deal with such prob-lems. All of the art department, for example, were aware of the potential of computersin their subject, but found the compulsory IT training problematic. They were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


reluctant to attend distance-learning sessions in the schools computer suites alongsideother teachers, finding the situation intimidating, as relative novices. They would haveliked to sort out specific relevant applications of IT, for themselves, in their ownsurroundings with focused support. The fact that there were only two computers inthe art department and that neither was networked meant that they were unable tomake use of appropriate materials and this reduced their incentive to use the school’sversion of the national provision. They were looking for learning involving extendedparticipation, within their own established departmental practices of learning ascreative exploration. What they were given was a standardised online training course,with reference to art teaching but without the facilities to make use of the (few, forthem) more interesting parts of the material. One art teacher eventually made signif-icant progress, but through buying a computer and art software to use at home. Shethen helped her colleagues. By the end the computer training initiative the level of ITliteracy had improved in the departments in our research, but rarely directly as a resultof the imposed course, and certainly not at a level commensurate with the high levelof government expenditure.

As other researchers also show (Retallick et al., 1999; Hustler et al., 2003), thereare two major pressures restricting formalised teacher learning of this type. One istime. Teachers would need to leave their classes for their own learning, and arereluctant to do so, especially in an era of outcome measurement, league tables andinspections. School management is similarly reluctant. Exceptions are made, forexample when the learning is examination related. Our schools, like many others,limit the number of teachers who can be off site at any one time. Teachers’ time outfor learning competes with time out to run off-site activities for pupils. Therefore,most planned teacher learning activity is located within the five designated days a yearwhen teachers are in school, but the pupils are not. Undertaking planned learningbeyond these days often relies on teachers giving up their own time, in the evenings,at weekends or during the holidays.

The second pressure is limited funding. What money was available had to betargeted at government-imposed priorities, and at the school’s annual developmentplan (also government priority related). Money for learning initiated by teachers fortheir own professional purposes was rarely available. Several of our sample reportedbeing unable to undertake learning they wanted to do in their own time, because therewas no funding to support them.

This policy approach towards teacher learning presented problems for experi-enced, successful teachers. There was little policy recognition of experienced teach-ers’ need for the sort of learning that might expand and extend their existing expertiseand enhance and sustain their success, unless it clearly fitted a national or schooldevelopment priority, or could be seen as measurably contributing to improvementsin teaching, as in the performance management scheme.

Government interventions and school management approaches did result in someeffective learning. Many teachers described ways in which imposed curriculum orassessment change had led to effective learning and improved practice. Short coursesand in-service provision could be effective on occasions. This was most likely if the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


teachers valued the content and the way it was provided and felt valued in theprocess. Also there needed to be the possibility of integrating what had been learnedinto ongoing practice without delay (Hustler et al., 2003). One example can be seenin the early use of the IT initiative in one department. The musicians appreciated theneed to improve their skills with new technology. The head of music negotiatedpermission for his department to spend the first allocated training day at one of theirhomes. There they made use of the expertise of a younger teacher with her owncomputer, to work together through the first few units of the required materials,digressing where it seemed appropriate to relate to their own departmental practices.They already had computers with music software in the department, which allowedthem to put into practice what they learned. Some of them put in a considerableeffort thereafter to learn to use departmental software by persevering with it whenother methods initially seemed easier. The government initiative provided a triggerand an initial working day. The learning culture of the department, the willingness ofone individual to share her skills and the determination of others to progress throughpractice, led to success.

Improving teacher learning

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that teacher learning, like other workplacelearning, is complex and relational. There are a large number of interrelated factorsaffecting the effectiveness of learning, each of which influences the others and is inturn influenced by them. Much of that learning is unplanned and serendipitous, anddoes not have preset objectives or easily identifiable outcomes. Sometimes learninghas significance only over a very long timescale. These truths present difficulties forthose striving to improve teacher learning. There are two dangers. Firstly, there is therisk of focusing on a small number of the factors affecting learning, thus ignoringothers which may be important. Secondly, there is the risk of assumed universalism:that is, assuming that an initiative that works in ‘x’ place for ‘y’ staff will thereforework in all other teaching places for all other teacher staff. These problems have beenillustrated by our data on the performance management scheme and the IT traininginitiative. Both schemes ignored learning which could not be measured althoughoccasionally they may have triggered it. Each took a universalistic view of teacherlearning, with one focused on setting and achieving objectives, the other on one-size-fits-all training provision. If the experiences of these two schemes in our four depart-ments were replicated nationally, and Haynes et al. (2002) identified similar problemswith performance management, then they represent an inefficient use of money andeffort, for limited gain.

Our study of departmental cultures illustrates these points in a different way. Teach-ers in the two collaborative departments had richer and more effective learning thanthose in the loosely integrated ones. One response might be to push all departmentsto work collaboratively. But, as Hargreaves (1994) pointed out, collaboration cannotbe forced. What he termed ‘contrived collegiality’ results in the same forms of strategiccompliance and resistance that we saw for performance management. That strategic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


compliance destroys any real collaboration. The head of the history department, Sam,faced that problem. He instigated changes (e.g. consolidating rooms and staffing) topromote more collaborative working, but some of his key staff were strong individu-alists. Sam eventually concluded that it was important to support individual staffautonomy rather than to force the issue and cause resentment. Furthermore, there isa potential downside for the departments with close internal collaboration, if theybecome too isolated from other staff in the school. For some IT teachers, an alternativeway to achieve some collaborative learning was through mixing with teachers fromother subjects.

If the significance of these sorts of problems is understood, a radically differentapproach to enhancing teacher learning is required. It needs to focus on maximisingthe learning potential within the participatory practices of teachers, and recognisingthat different teachers will respond differently to the same circumstances, as eachcontinues to construct his/her own professional habitus. Thus, this approach shouldbe based on maximising opportunities to learn, incentives to learn and support forlearning, increasing the likelihood that more teachers will pursue learning and learnmore effectively. This is antithetical to dominant views of learning as acquisitionwithin the audit culture. It means focusing attention not primarily on individuallearner responsibility, on targeted learning needs, or on measured learning outcomes,but on creating a more expansive learning environment at work.

Expansive and restrictive learning environments for teachers

The concept of expansive and restrictive learning environments was initially devel-oped by Fuller and Unwin (2003, 2004) in one of the other projects in the researchnetwork. They observed considerable differences in the quality of apprentice learningin different firms in the steel industry. In explaining this, they identified variations inwhat they termed the learning environment. The apprentices with the poorest expe-riences had a learning environment which they defined as restrictive, whilst those withthe best learning had an ‘expansive’ environment. An expansive learning environmentis one that presents wide-ranging and diverse opportunities to learn, in a culture thatvalues and supports learning. It increases what Billett (2001b) terms the ‘affordances’for learning at work, whilst also increasing the chances that workers will want to makethe most of those affordances. In the case of the steelworks, this was achieved becausepractices in the firm encouraged apprentices to take their learning seriously. Appren-ticeship, including time spent learning in a local college, was valued by experiencedworkers and managers who had themselves gone through the same process. Thisculture of learning support had been established over a long period of time. Thecollege tutor responsible for external courses maintained close contact with thecompany. There was mutual trust. In addition, the firm organised a variedprogramme for its apprentices. As well as the off the job college course, there wasbuilt-in experience of working in different departments in the firm, an example ofwhat Fuller and Unwin (2003, 2004) term boundary crossing—moving out of yourown familiar patch to learn by engaging in a different environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


As we examined our teacher learning data, it became apparent that, although thedetail would be different, the expansive–restrictive model applied in a similar way.Figure 1 sets out a number of factors which are important to the expansiveness of theteacher workplace learning environments.Figure 1. Continuum of expansive–restrictive learning environments for teachersMost of these features have already been illustrated in our descriptions of teacherlearning earlier in this article. The last is not of quite the same order as the rest, beingfocused on individual teachers. This is because individual teachers’ actions anddispositions help structure the learning environment they work in. They are part of it.It is not just external to them.

Our research suggests that one of the most effective ways of improving teachers’learning is through creating and encouraging more expansive features of teachers’learning environments, which are appropriate to particular schools or departments.

The analysis above is intended to facilitate this. However, some caveats arenecessary. The framework as a whole is illustrative. Other factors might be added, butthese were important in our settings, and are reflected in other research (e.g. Retallicket al., 1999; Hustler et al., 2003). Though the diagram appears to present opposing

<<<EXPANSIVE RESTRICTIVE>>>Close collaborative working Isolated, individualist workingColleagues mutually supportive inenhancing teacher learning

Colleagues obstruct or do not supporteach others learning

An explicit focus on teacher learning, as adimension of normal working practices

No explicit focus on teacher learning,except to meet crises or imposedinitiatives

Supported opportunities for personaldevelopment that goes beyond school orgovernment priorities

Teacher learning mainly strategiccompliance with government or schoolagendas

Out of school educational opportunitiesincluding time to stand back, reflect andthink differently

Few out of school educationalopportunities, only narrow, short trainingprogrammes

Opportunities to integrate off the joblearning into everyday practice

No opportunity to integrate off the joblearning

Opportunities to participate in more thanone working group

Work restricted to home departmentalteams within one school

Opportunity to extend professionalidentity through boundary crossing intoother departments, school activities,schools and beyond.

Opportunities for boundary crossing onlycome with a job change.

Support for local variation in ways ofworking and learning for teachers andwork groups.

Standardised approaches to teacherlearning are prescribed and imposed.

Teachers use a wide range of learningopportunities

Teachers use narrow range of learningapproaches

Figure 1. Continuum of expansive–restrictive learning environments for teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


ideal-types, it more accurately represents a series of continua. The teachers, depart-ments and schools in our study lay at various intermediate stages of the various criteria,some more consistently towards the expansive end. However, we could readily identifydegrees of all the listed types of restrictiveness. It would be difficult, sometimesimpractical, and occasionally inappropriate, to be completely expansive in a workingschool, as teacher learning priorities can cut across other school priorities. In practice,most schools, departments and teachers will be able to achieve a more expansive envi-ronment in relation to some criteria, and less with others. There will be circumstanceswhere it would be counterproductive to push too hard for some expansive features,as with the history department and collaboration. Furthermore, there may be circum-stances where two expansive dimensions are partly contradictory. There will alwaysbe restrictions, but the aim is to maximise expansion as far as is possible.

Some restrictive elements arise from the nature of English secondary teaching as ajob, as it is currently configured. The emphasis in most schools is on individual teach-ers working in their own closed classrooms, where much learning and developmentcan take place through hot or cold embodied judgement making (Beckett & Hager,2002), though the learning may not be consciously recognised at the time. Thissetting does not encourage making the teacher learning explicit, without additionalactivity, such as the use of portfolios or reflective logs (Retallick, 1999). Nor does itencourage sharing with and learning from others and broadening the scope of thelearning (Day, 1999). In English secondary schools opportunities to work with othersbeyond specific subject or responsibility groups are limited. Thus there are fewchances for the teachers to cross boundaries to work with teachers of other subjectsin their own schools or to work with fellow subject specialists out of school. Anothercrucial factor is the lack of time for teachers to take part in activities outside theirlessons and outside their schools, even to stand back and take stock of situations, orto try to apply changes in practice. Managers and teachers both recognise that inmaintaining quality day-to-day learning experiences for the pupils, the use of substi-tute teachers is rarely beneficial, and thus neither wants too much time out.

Other problems are rooted more directly in current English policy and manage-ment approaches, and therefore could be addressed, though this would require acultural and political change. In particular, the over-emphasis on short-term and‘measurable’ learning activity is restrictive, as is the over-emphasis on school andgovernment learning priorities at the expense of those of the teachers themselves.

The principles set out in the English government’s (DfEE, 2001) strategy docu-ment sound encouragingly in tune with our expansive environment, and the promisesof additional funding ought to help provide time and space for teacher development.However closer inspection of the intended allocation of the funding reveals that formuch of it there is a lack of flexibility, with the money being tied to audited nationaldevelopmental requirements with only limited attempts to link these to teachers’ indi-vidual preferences, or to recognise either long-term learning or learning that cannotbe easily measured.

As with other workplaces, the learning of the staff (in this case, teachers) is neces-sarily secondary to the prime productive activity of the firm (in this case teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


pupils). This fact, combined with continual pressure on scarce resources, means thatsome changes that might be beneficial for teacher learning will be difficult to accom-modate. However, some of the considerable resources currently devoted to teacherlearning might be more effectively spent. If there is a will in the system to furtherenhance teacher learning, actions to increase the expansiveness of learning environ-ments can be taken at a variety of levels. Though gains will be greatest when severallevels of activity are working in harmony, even small, localised changes at one levelcan result in some benefits. In what follows, we give some brief illustrative examplesof the sorts of action that could be taken.

Possible actions to increase the expansiveness of teachers’ learning environments

Individual teachers

As teachers themselves are significant constitutive parts of the environment wherethey work, there are things they can do, individually or in collaboration withcolleagues, to help increase the expansiveness of their learning environments. All ofthe teachers in our study learned in effective ways, but some used a far wider reper-toire of approaches than others. We found many examples of dedication to personaland professional growth and development, and to mutual support of colleagues.Others went further, looking to learn through mentoring others, and through fore-grounding their own learning, helping create supportive conditions for colleagues.Others looked for ways to ‘boundary cross’ within and beyond the school, thoughthey did not use that term, engaging with other teachers, groups and departments.Some engaged with longer courses, which could entail action research, but suchopportunities were rare. Most teachers can do some of these sorts of things, providedother aspects of the environment are favourable. However, much depends upon thestatus, career ambitions, identity and self-perception of the teacher. These factors arealso related to contextual issues such as home and family life, age and career stage,national and school structures of career progression and salary, and the esteem ofspecific teachers in the particular school, and of teachers more generally in the widercommunity.

The department

Subject departments should regard teacher learning as one of their explicit purposes,integrated into the continual improvement of their practices. Developing significantinformal contacts, exchanges and discussions, access to each other’s lessons and work,team-teaching and team working to meet a specific problem or target are all potentiallyeffective approaches. However, allowing for individual differences in disposition,departments must balance the desirability for close collaborative working, with thepreferences of some teachers to work more independently. Some departments coulddo more to help and encourage members to develop collaborative links elsewhere.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


There is no reason in principle why collaborative working and learning within thedepartment should preclude boundary crossing. Some of the teachers in our twocollaborative departments had developed significant ways of working especially withdepartments in other schools.

The school

Schools can do several things to move closer to an expansive learning environmentfor teachers. Management at all levels can set an example and demonstrate that theyvalue teacher learning. There needs to be strategic planning for the development andsupport of an expansive learning environment. This needs to recognise the signifi-cance of everyday teaching practices as learning. Opportunities for collaborativelearning, boundary crossing and working in different teams can be constructed.Social procedures and physical structures can encourage teams of teachers, such assubject departments, to work closely together and spend non teaching time togetherproviding opportunities for positive learning and development. Whilst implementinggovernment policy and fulfilling school development objectives are important, it canbe beneficial to support teacher learning which does not directly fulfil these require-ments. The five official staff development days in English schools are core time for(often more formal) teacher learning but they could be used flexibly, giving teachersspace to work on learning that matters to them, as well as highlighting school priori-ties. For example, staff could be excused attendance from some of them, in lieu ofother engagement with learning in their own time. Currently, longer off-site educa-tional experiences are rare, but highly valued. Managers need to look for imaginativeways to support such opportunities, which may allow teachers to ‘interrogate aspectsof their values, purposes and practices and the personal, institutional and policycontexts which influence these’ (Day, 1999, p. 31).

The government

Government policies can make a major difference to the expansiveness of teachers’learning environments, through modifying the regulation of their working practices.However, teacher learning is only one educational policy concern, and would alwayshave to be set against other priorities for action and for funding. One possible changewould be to greatly reduce the focus on restricted, pre-specified learning objectives,instead targeting funds and policies towards helping schools enhance teacher learningthrough everyday working practices. Beyond the school, support for attendance onlong courses for teachers would allow them to engage with new ideas, and facilitatepossible shifts in disposition. From the perspective of enhancing teacher learning, notall such courses need formal certification. The enrichment of, say, masters-levelthinking and activity is important in its own right. Another source of learning andenrichment can be working for short spells in and with schools and departments otherthan their own. If spare teaching capacity could be funded in schools it would alloweducational leave and periods of working in other schools to happen.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Conclusion

In this article we have argued that in order to understand teacher learning better,and then to improve it, it is helpful to adopt a combination of two positions. Fromthe workplace learning literature, comes the focus on learning through participationin everyday practices. From the teacher development literature, comes the focus onlearning as a predominantly individual process of construction. One way ofcombining these approaches lies in the concept of expansive and restrictive learningenvironments. By making the learning environments of teachers more expansive, itis possible to increase the potential for effective learning, and the likelihood thatmore teachers will avail themselves of the opportunities that are available. Thesuggestions made above are not the only ways to do this. They illustrate someaspects of what an expansive approach to improving teacher learning might looklike, if it were adopted. This would mean some changes in the ways that teacherswork, for their work is the major source of their learning. It would mean that plan-ning and activity should be responsive to the micro-conditions of specific workinggroups or contexts, as well as to macro influences. To be successful, it will need topay attention to power differentials and workplace inequalities, as well as individualdispositions. Our research suggests that such approaches will only have a partialimpact, for any changes introduced will affect different teachers in different ways,and will result in differing responses from them. However, this partiality is true forall approaches to teacher learning. Indeed, perhaps the strongest conclusion to bedrawn from current research it is that efforts to improve teacher learning willalways impact unevenly, across schools, departments and individual teachers. Inthat situation, rather than imposing targets and compulsory training experiences, amore helpful approach is to encourage and facilitate teacher learning through andbeyond work. That is, construct an environment where such learning and associ-ated teacher professionalism can flourish.

Note

1. The Research Network ‘Improving Incentives for Learning in the Workplace’ was funded bythe Economic and Social Research Council, as part of the Teaching and Learning ResearchProgramme: award number L139251005. The network consisted of five projects:

● Regulatory structures and access to learning: case studies in social care and cleaning, H. Rainbird,University College Northampton and A. Munro, Napier University.

● Recognition of tacit skills and knowledge in work re-entry, K. Evans and N. Kersch, University ofLondon, Institute of Education.

● The workplace as a site for learning for mature workers and new entrants: opportunities and barriers insmall and medium-sized enterprises, L. Unwin and A. Fuller, University of Leicester.

● An exploration of the nature of apprenticeship in an advanced economy, P. Senker, UniversityCollege Northampton.

● The school as a site for workbased learning, P. Hodkinson and H. Hodkinson, University of Leeds.Network website: http://www.tlrp.org/project%20sites/IILW/index.htm.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


References

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1974) Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness (San Francisco,CA, Jossey-Bass).

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1978) Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective (Reading,MA, Addison-Wesley).

Avis, J., Bloomer, M., Esland, G., Gleeson, D. & Hodkinson, P. (1996) Knowledge and nationhood:education, politics and work (London, Cassell).

Beckett, D. & Hager, P. (2002) Life, work and learning: practice in postmodernity (London,Routledge).

Bereiter, C. (2002) Education and the mind in the knowledge age (London, Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates).

Billett, S. (2001a) Learning in the workplace: strategies for effective practice (Crow’s Nest, Australia,Allen & Unwin).

Billett, S. (2001b) Learning through working life: interdependencies at work, Studies in ContinuingEducation, 23(1), 19–35.

Billett, S. (2002) Critiquing workplace learning discourses: participation and continuity at work,Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(1), 56–67.

Billett, S. (2004) Learning through work: workplace participatory practices, in: H. Rainbird, A.Fuller & A. Munro (Eds) Workplace learning in context (London, Routledge).

Bloomer, M. & Hodkinson, P. (2000) Learning careers: continuity and change in young people’sdispositions to learning, British Journal of Educational Studies, 26(5), 583–598.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology (Cambridge, PolityPress).

Day, C. (1999) Developing teachers: the challenge of lifelong learning (London, Falmer Press).Department of Education and Science (1972) The education and training of teachers (The James

Report) (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (2000) Performance management in schools—

performance management framework (DfEE 0051/2000) (London, Her Majesty’s StationeryOffice).

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (2001) Learning and teaching: a strategy forprofessional development (DfEE 0071/2001) (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office).

Engeström, Y. (1984) Students’ conceptions and textbook presentations of the movement of themoon: a study in the manufacture of misconceptions, in: H. Nielsen & P. V. Thompsen (Eds)Fysik I skolen: Problemer og perspectiver (Aarhus, Aarhus Universitet, Det Frysiske Institut).

Engeström, Y. (1999) Activity theory and individual and social transformation, in: Y. Engeström,R. Miettinen & R. Punamaki (Eds) Perspectives on activity theory (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press).

Engeström, Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work: towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualisa-tion, Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

Engeström, Y. (2004) The new generation of expertise: seven theses, in: H. Rainbird, A. Fuller &A. Munro (Eds) Workplace learning in context (London, Routledge).

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence (London, Falmer Press).Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating

and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16(4),407–426.

Fuller, A. & Unwin, L. (2004) Expansive learning environments: integrating organizational andpersonal development, in: H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds) Workplace learning incontext (London, Routledge).

Goodson, I. F. (2003) Professional knowledge, professional lives: studies in education and change(Maidenhead, Open University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Hager, P. (in press) Current theories of workplace learning: a critical assessment, in: N. Bascia, A.Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds) International handbook ofeducational policy ( Berlin/Dordrecht/New York, Springer).

Hargreaves, A. (1992) Teacher development and educational change (London, Falmer Press).Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern

age (London, Cassell).Harris, A. (2001) Department improvement and school improvement: a missing link, British

Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 477–486.Haynes, G., Chamberlin, R., Wragg, E. & Wragg, C. (2002) Being managed: Performance

Management from the teachers’ point of view, paper presented at the British EducationalResearch Association Annual Conference, Exeter.

Helsby, G. (1999) Changing teachers’ work (Buckingham, Open University Press).Hodkinson, P. & Hodkinson, H. (2003) Individuals, communities of practice and the policy context:

schoolteachers learning in their workplace, Studies in Continuing Education, 25(1), 3–21.Hodkinson, P. & Hodkinson, H. (2004a) The complexities of workplace learning: problems and

dangers in trying to measure attainment, in: H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds) Workplacelearning in context (London, Routledge).

Hodkinson, H. & Hodkinson, P. (2004b) Rethinking the concept of community of practice in rela-tion to schoolteachers’ workplace learning, International Journal of Training and Development,8(1), 21–32.

Hodkinson, P. & Hodkinson, H. (2004c) The significance of individuals’ dispositions in workplacelearning: a case study of two teachers, Journal of Education and Work, 17(2), 167–182.

Hodkinson, P., Hodkinson, H., Evans, K. & Kersch, N. with Fuller, A., Unwin, L. & Senker, P.(2004) The significance of individual biography in workplace learning, Studies in the Educationof Adults, 36(1), 6–26.

Huberman, M. (1995) The lives of teachers (London, Cassell).Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., Campbell, A. & Howson, J. (2003) Teachers’

perceptions of continuing professional development (DfES research report no 429) (London, HerMajesty’s Stationery Office).

Ingvarson, L. (2002) Building a learning profession (Canberra, Australian Commission of Educators).Lacey, C. (1977) The socialisation of teachers (London, Methuen).Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Plowden Report (1967) Children and their primary schools (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery

Office).Power, M. (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Rainbird, H., Munro, A. & Holly, L. (2004) The employment relationship and workplace learning,

in: H. Rainbird, A. Fuller & A. Munro (Eds) Workplace learning in context (London, Routledge).Rainbird, H., Munro, A. & Senker, P. (in press) Running faster to stay in the same place? The

intended and unintended consequences of government policy on workplace learning in the UK,in: A. Cumming, N. Bascia, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds) Internationalhandbook of educational policy (Berlin/Dordrecht/New York, Springer).

Retallick, J. (1999) Teachers’ workplace learning: towards legitimation and accreditation, Teachersand Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5(1), 33–50.

Retallick, J., Groundwater-Smith, S., Clancy, S., Dunshea, G. (1999) Investigating and enhancingteacher learning in New South Wales schools: research report (WaggaWagga, Australia, Centre forProfessional Development in Education, Charles Sturt University).

Schön, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner (New York, Basic Books).Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1973) Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education, Science,

182, 553–559.Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational

Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development (London, Heinemann).Watkins, K. & Marsick. V. (1993) Sculpting the learning organisation (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-

Bass).Weber, K. (Ed.) (2001) Experience and discourse—a life history perspective (Roskilde, Roskilde

University, Denmark).Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press).Zeichner, K. M. (1994) Conceptions of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education, in:

G. Harvard & P. Hodkinson (Eds) Action and reflection in teacher education (Norwood, NJ,Ablex).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 0

9:27

08

Oct

ober

201

4

improving schoolteachers' workplace learning

Documents