This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 23:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Leadership inEducation: Theory and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Professional development ofsupervisors through professionallearning communitiesYamina Bouchamma & Clémence MichaudPublished online: 08 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Yamina Bouchamma & Clémence Michaud (2014) Professional developmentof supervisors through professional learning communities, International Journal of Leadership inEducation: Theory and Practice, 17:1, 62-82, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2013.778332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.778332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Professional development of supervisors through

professional learning communities

YAMINA BOUCHAMMA and CLEMENCE MICHAUD

This article presents the results of a study involving members of a community of practicecomposed of school principals and vice-principals and department heads who becameresponsible for faculty evaluations following the implementation of the Program Evalua-tion of Teachers (NBDE, 1999). Nine CP meetings were examined to gain insight onhow this setting enabled these teaching supervisors to collectively train and enhance theirpractice, specifically with regard to their new role and the proposed program. Our analysiswas based on Wenger’s social theory of learning, with particular emphasis on teachingpractices (learning by doing). Results shed light on (1) the structural challenges impedingthe program’s implementation and (2) the inherent aspects of its integration and proposedsolutions to facilitate change in supervisory practices. Two themes emerged during thestudy: participation or the construction of meaning (various evaluation concepts) and reifi-cation (various concepts in terms of tools or practices).

Context

In Canada, education is a provincial jurisdiction and there is a depart-ment of education in each of the 10 provinces. This accounts for somedifferences regarding the strategies related to the improvement ofacademic achievement. For example, there is a teaching staff evaluationin only four provinces, including New Brunswick (Bouchamma, 2005).Along with other countries, Canada has invested in improving academicachievement through the professional development of its teachers.

One change implemented is that of assigning school principals the roleof pedagogical leadership. New Brunswick is one province undertakingsuch a change, where the school principal has this additional role(Government of New Brunswick Department of Education [GNBDE],1997, 1999, 2002). In this regard, New Brunswick’s Department ofEducation launched the Programme for Teachers’ Evaluation (PTE)(GNBDE, 1999), focused on student achievement through the improve-ment of teaching practices. The programme encourages teachers to

Yamina Bouchamma is full professor at the Department of Foundations and Practices in Education at

Universite Laval, Quebec (Quebec), G1V 0A6, Canada. E-mail: yamina.bouchamma@fse.ulaval.ca.

Her areas of research are academic achievement, exemplary schools, minority groups, immigration,

professional learning communities and communities of practice. Clemence Michaud is full professor at

Universite de Moncton, Pavillon jeanne-de-Valois B149, Moncton, NBE1A3E9, Canada. E-mail:

clemence.michaud@umoncton.ca. Her areas of research are the management of change in education,

accompanying the change, training of teachers, reflexive analysis, communities of practice and profes-

sional learning communities.

INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION, 2014

Vol. 17, No. 1, 62–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.778332

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

remain up-to-date and to upgrade both skills and productivity under thesupervision of the school principal or department head. This article exam-ines how some of these teaching supervisors collectively gained additionaltraining and knowledge to help them discharge their new responsibilities.We examine how a community of practice of teaching supervisors copedwith the management of the new programme of teaching staff evaluation.We focussed on the arguments of the community of practice membersregarding change and the strategies they developed to implement thischange in their practice.

The PTE in francophone schools is based on the premise that theprincipals’ supervisory or pedagogical leadership practices have a positiveeffect on improving the quality of teaching, and consequently studentachievement (GNBDE, 1999). This initiative ought to enable teachers toremain up-to-date and enhance their skills and performance under thesupervision of their principal or department head (GNBDE, 1999). Lead-ers in the province of New Brunswick emphasize the importance of thispedagogical role (Quality Learning Agenda, in GNBDE, 2002). In the pol-icy document, When Kids Come First, the creation of professional learningcommunities is listed among the seven measures proposed for theimprovement of student outcomes (GNBDE, 2007).

Nolan and Hoover noted that the world of supervision suffered from afailure to devise commonly-accepted definitions and suggested one we usein this study: Teacher supervision is an organizational function designed tomake comprehensive judgment concerning teacher performance and com-petence for the purposes of personnel decisions such as tenure and contin-uing employment. Though improvement in the teacher’s performancemay result from the process and may be a desired outcome, the process asa whole is aimed primarily at making a summative judgment about thequality of the teacher’s performance in carrying out both instructionalduties and other responsibilities (Nolan & Hoover, 2005, p. 26).

Staff development

A trend in staff development is the move towards collective competenciesand professional communities of practice. A professional community ofpractice is formed of individuals who meet to discuss common issues, shareideas and learn from each other, either face to face or virtually (Bourhis &Tremblay, 2004; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). These individu-als support each others’ learning and collaboration (Davel & Tremblay,2005) and share practices and perceptions in the pursuit of common inter-ests and activities (Lave, 1988; Wenger, 1998). Communities of practiceare characterized by several principles related as much to the communities’goals as they are to their modes of operation and structures. These charac-teristics include: a mission; a vision; shared values; common interests andobjectives; the need and the desire to share concerns, experiences, methodsand successful practices; collaboration and commitment within the group;and action, orientation and experimentation (Cate, Vaughn, & O’Hair,

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

2006; Eaker, Dufour, & Dufour, 2004; Printy 2004; Probst & Borzillo,2007; Wenger, 1998).

Instructional or pedagogical leadership

Instructional leadership by school administrators represents a lasting andeffective action in successful schools (Hallinger, 2005). This type ofshared leadership is predominant in more successful schools. The beststudent outcomes in core subjects are associated with an instructionalform of leadership that makes student support and evaluation practices apriority (Anderson, 2008) and that encourages learning communities orprofessional communities of practice (Hopkins, 2003; Sillins & Mulford,2007).

Teaching staff supervision and evaluation

Though some see links between supervision and evaluation, theseconcepts are distinct in many ways: the main objectives, rationale of theirorigins, areas of application, nature of the relation between teacher andschool manager, methods of data collection and teacher’s role in theparticular process Evaluation focusses on standards: it remains hierarchi-cal and is based on a standardized process of data collection, and theperson in charge of the evaluation plays the role of an expert. Supervisionregards the development of teachers: it complements school management;it advocates collegiality between administrators and teachers; the processis based on individual data and shared experiences; and it encourages risktaking to achieve its goals (Nolan & Hoover, 2005).

There are many models of staff supervision (E.G: clinical supervision,by peers, self-evaluation, etc.) with limits and strengths to each. There arethose who suggest that supervision be adapted according to the differentcontextual situations, instead of the use of a particular model, forexample. (Waite, 1992).

Using professional communities of practice to exercise instructionalleadership

An instructional leader is committed to ensuring that a school provides alearning community which enables teachers to partake in pedagogicallearning activities, collaboration and peer supervision in order that they,in turn, provide the best learning for students (Hopkins, 2003). The lead-ership in high schools which use professional communities seeks topromote learning through the school’s mission, objectives, culture andstructure, as well as through intellectual stimulation, individual supportand performance expectations (Sillins & Mulford, 2007). Transformingschools through implementation of professional communities of practiceis accepted as a solution to the inherent challenges of individual guidanceand supervision (Nolan & Hoover, 2005).

64 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

The community of practice: how it works

What sets professional communities of practice apart are their operationand structure, notably: shared leadership that encourages mutual support(Borzillo, 2007; Wenger, 1998), the absence of hierarchy (Brown &Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998), shared responsibility (Borzillo, 2007;Sackney, Mitchell, & Walker, 2005) and self-organization (Brown &Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998) in the form of piloting (Powers & Guan,2000; Rogers, 2000), where the chosen individual acts as facilitator ormentor (Michinov, 2003). Professionals also benefit from a sponsor whoprovides necessary support (Borzillo, 2007; Wenger & Snyder, 2000) andtangible results from the network (Borzillo, 2007; Buchel & Raub, 2002)in an environment that instils trust (Borzillo, 2007).

Decision-making and learning within the professional communities ofpractice. Learning in communities of practice is a collaborative processthat facilitates improved practice to meet the problems and complexitiesof teaching and learning (Sackney, 2007; Wenger, 1998). In this context,individuals are encouraged to learn alone, as a team or even in largerprofessional communities of practice (Sachs, 2003). Members gainknowledge by developing free-flowing, concrete-learning activities (Dufour& Eaker, 1998; Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Mitchell & Sackney, 2006;Sackney, 2007; Sakney et al., 2005). One goal is continuous improvementthrough the development of common resources and routine networkingactivities focussed on sharing both information and knowledge amongmembers.

A social theory of learning

This article is based on a social theory of learning (Wenger, 1998).This theory complements other theories in this area by explaininglearning in terms of social participation, where members actively collab-orate to build their identity within a particular context. Wenger viewedthe community of practice as having four distinct components whichmust be understood in their interrelations: (1) Meaning: learning as anexperience or the capacity to be in contact with life and the world in asignificant manner; (2) Practice: learning by doing or the resources orwork situations that support a mutual commitment in action; (3) Com-munity: learning in terms of belonging or meetings that lead to thedevelopment of projects and the participation of members with thesame level of competence; and (4) Identity: learning by becoming orthe impact of learning activities on its members and their appropriationof this knowledge.

This article focusses on the aspect of practice that brings out the nego-tiated social character of what is implied in conversations, resulting in theexpression of a common ideal. Sharing individual experiences contributesto the emergence of common knowledge (Wenger, 1998), enablingprofessional community of practice members to be more effective in theirwork. Sharing processes such as these engenders the construction of

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

meaning and a bond among members. Stemming from collective negotia-tion, a cohesiveness is hammered out by members, implying a mutualresponsibility, that is an integral part of the practice within the commu-nity (Wenger, 1998). A professional community of practice operatesaround the concerns of its members. Their combined knowledge andcommon interests are not the only reason for members’ active participa-tion: they also stimulate solutions and/or learning which members need inorder to deal with changes to their work routines. Because thisprofessional community of practice theory addressed the social aspect ofthis learning process, it provided a fresh perspective on the relationshipbetween organizational knowledge and collective action.

The participation/reification duality

The term participation is used here to describe the experience of individu-als who actively take on projects of a social nature. Reification refers to aprocess that gives form to an experience by producing artefacts thatrender it materialized, at least for a time. The form may be an abstractconcept (e.g. democracy), a tool, a symbol, a story or words. Reificationincludes numerous other processes, such as fabricating, conceiving, repre-senting, naming, describing or perceiving. Participation and reificationrepresent a duality. The continuity and richness of the significationsproduced during the interactions in the professional community ofpractice meetings depend upon a solid balance between participation andreification. If participation predominates, there is a lack of sufficientreference material to negotiate the significations. Should reificationprevail, there occurs a lack of opportunity to regenerate the significationsin light of actual situations.

Context

This article examines how teaching supervisors collectively gainedadditional training and knowledge to successfully manage their newresponsibilities within the confines of the PTE. As observers, we focussedon the supervisors’ strategies regarding the appropriation of their learningwithin professional communities of practice.

Participants

The professional communities of practice meetings were conducted witheight participants the first year and nine the second year. In 2005, theprofessional communities of practice consisted of eight supervisors whoparticipated in the meetings, including one department head (herebyreferred to as ‘personnel with added responsibility’) and seven administra-tors (four principals and three vice principals). In 2006, the professional

66 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

communities of practice were comprised nine members, namely twopersonnel with added responsibility and seven administrators (again, fourprincipals and three vice principals).

At the end of the first year, one staff member with addedresponsibility and one principal joined the group for the second year andone vice principal left the group. The professional communities ofpractice participants were volunteers from three francophone schooldistricts in New Brunswick (Canada). They arranged replacements inorder to be able to participate in the community’s meetings during theirscheduled working hours. Each professional community of practice meet-ing was moderated by the project’s research team, us.

Data

Thirty-one hours of professional communities of practice meetings wererecorded and transcribed verbatim. Researchers kept logs and took fieldnotes. At the end of each year, we did individual interviews with thecommunity of practice members. For this particular article, we took onlythe data related to the communities of practice meetings in order toreduce the complexity and length of our text.

Meetings were guided by this professional community of practice’sbasic guidelines, which the members outlined in a document entitled‘Supervise and succeed in a time of change’. In this document, wepresented to the professional communities of practice members thebroad outlines of the project financed by a grant from the CanadianSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We set the condi-tions and main principles of the meetings, which have evolved since,according to the community of practice theoretical framework.Together, we established the specific operation guidelines related tothese professional communities of practice: (a) open debate, (b) thecommon sense of all members, (c) planning in collaboration, (d)coordination. We agreed to realize a plan of action with all themembers or some of them. The professional communities of practicemembers identified possible strategies regarding their common goal: theestablishment of the PTE in their schools. The professional communi-ties of practice members were asked to elaborate a list of activities fortheir meetings: the analysis of the supervision of their own teachingstaff, the elaboration of guidelines for their observations, invitations forlecturers and reviews of relevant articles or books. The members pro-posed the order of the day for each work session. Two guest speakerswere invited during these sessions to discuss union-management rela-tions and school legislation.

Outcomes

We looked for recurrent themes and responses to the specific researchissues throughout the meetings. We drew upon established methods of

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

coding and categorizing to identify themes and patterns (Miles &Huberman, 1994).

We took into account two significant themes: (1) Participation (theexperience of the professional communities of practice members) and (2)Reification (process by which the members bring the experience to life).Table 1 summarizes the two major themes: (a) participation and (b)reification and subtopics that are related to each.

Participation: structural challenges impedingthe implementation of the PTE

During the different sessions, the participants voiced their opinionsregarding several challenges encountered in teacher evaluation. Theirconcerns included: (1) mandatory school age, the automatic passingsystem and the integration of special needs students and (2) human andmaterial resources.

Table 1. Participation and reification change and solutions

(1) Participation (Structural challenges

impeding the implementation of the

Program for Teachers’ Evaluation

[PTE])

Mandatory school age, the automatic passing system

and the integration of special needs students

Human and material resources

(2) Reification (Inherent obstacles within

the PTE hindering its implementation)

change and solutions

The dual nature of the PTE and technical

particularities and the requirements of the PTE.

Human and relational aspect

of the PTE process: Clear

communication

Supervision

differentiation

Data collection

Evaluation report

Introducing change in

supervision practices

Identifying mentor

teachers

Promoting

collaboration

Encourage long-term

goals

Solution benefit (for

supervisee and supervisor)

Being prepared

Encouraging self-

evaluation

Connecting with the

supervised teacher

Provide positive and

rapid feedback

Fostering different

styles of supervision

Writing it down

Respecting the

various teaching styles

and practices

Being equipped

68 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Mandatory school age and the integration of special needs students

In the Canadian province of New Brunswick, students are required bylaw to attend school until the age of 18. As a result, teachers complainedabout dealing with students who have gone through the different levels ofthe school system without acquiring certain skills. According to ourparticipants, this condition sometimes leads to a lack of motivation on thestudent’s part, and subsequently a lack of orderliness in the classroom.One of the participants said:

Elsewhere, students must attend school until the age of 16, whereas here, it’s 18 … Here in

New Brunswick, there are no dropouts. We have the lowest school dropout rate … but that’s

because the dropouts are in our classes. We’ve created another problem that has been added

to the existing one in our classrooms. (3 April)

The integration of special needs students was also cited as a cause ofbehaviour problems in the classroom. Some teachers felt that this integra-tion has not been systematically accompanied by the necessary humanresource support: ‘Inclusion [of special education students] is one of themost difficult situations facing New Brunswick schools … it’s one of thebiggest issues to deal with …’ (27 February), as one supervisorcommented. Some members estimated that this situation called for newclass management methods which should be considered in pre-servicezteacher training. One said: ‘In my class, my student with attention-deficithyperactivity disorder needs a teacher’s aide just as much as my autisticstudent does, but he’ll never get that help’ (3 April).

Human and material resources

The supervision of teachers suggests that the supervisor is able to respondto the needs of the teachers in terms of professional development;however, CP members commented on the lack of sufficient materialresources for this purpose. One said: ‘We may have the money to pay forsubstitute teachers, but there are travel expenses and registration fees thatare usually from $200 to $250, which we all find dissuasive’ (3 April).Moreover, some members questioned the pre-service training of newteachers. For example, one opined: ‘The person that I supervised, Icannot believe that this person went to university and has a Bachelor’sdegree in education’ (12 December). The professional communities ofpractice members told us that several factors contribute to this situation:the time lapse between supply and demand and the structural changesaffecting the two teaching cycles (elementary and high school) have led tothe hiring of teachers who do not always possess the necessary skills. Theprofessional communities of practice members also told us that youngteachers are not always free regarding the choice to teach maths andsciences, for example. One said: ‘And often they (young teachers) say“I”d like to teach in this grade, but I don’t like math, I don’t like science.’It’s not easy’ (3 April). The problem related to the pre-service training ofnew teachers persists, despite an optimal management of human

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

resources, such as the non-attribution to young teachers of levels that areknown to be difficult (grades 7 and 8):

At one point, we have to try to achieve a balance in all that and I think that if we want to

solve, improve, or alleviate the problem, I think we should talk about it as a team and try to

take on the 9th graders together; often the more experienced teachers have to help new teach-

ers who lack the necessary know-how, training and experience in their field. (April 3)

If change is hard for the more experienced teachers, it can be as hardfor the young ones who must deal with change parallel to their daily activ-ities. Large groups, for example, and particularly heterogeneous ones, canbe difficult to manage. One participant said: ‘… class with 30 studentswhere each one has their own particularities to be considered. It becomesincredibly difficult’ (3 April).

A community member stated that new teachers lacked sufficientknowledge of both the curricula and the programme used to evaluatethem: ‘How come they enter the school system as teachers and don’t evenknow on what they will be evaluated? It makes absolutely no sense’ (12December).

Some members of the community feel that teacher evaluationrepresents not only a challenge for in-coming teachers, but also for thoseclose to retirement. As retirement approaches, some may resist change. Onesaid: ‘Thirty years of teaching, and then it’s like “Oh my God”!’ (3 April).

Evaluation practices

Because of a lack of time, the evaluation of teachers in New Brunswickschools is quick. Teachers do not stop to examine non-mastered materialbefore continuing the program. For example, the professionalcommunities of practice participants emphasized this difficulty within asystem that imposes a precise time frame for learning activities anddemands that the focus of learning activities be directed towards thestudents. One participant noted how:

We are always saying that the learning activities are centered on the student, but in reality,

there is little input on their part. It’s us … Why is it like that? Because we have curricula and

programs to cover and when you don’t cover it all, you are not doing your job. (December 12)

The role of pedagogical leadership: The need for solid ground

School principals try to exercise pedagogical leadership in a context ofchange, yet they do not always possess the necessary training and prereq-uisites to be able to handle, for example, measuring a teacher’s level ofcompetence, even if they have the means. For example, one supervisorasked this question of the other community members in order to highlightthis lack of training: ‘If I talk to you about metacognition … What does itmean?’ (3 April). Participants added, however, that their job as supervisorenabled them to get on-the-job training and to learn from their teachingstaff. One supervisor observed how: ‘It can be as enriching for theevaluator as it is for the person being evaluated’ (3 April).

70 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

On this subject, Waite speaks of the sink model-or-swim model of staffdevelopment to illustrate, not without humour, the lack of professionaldevelopment for supervisors, who are left to themselves in the professionaldevelopment of teachers (Waite, 1997).

Unforeseen circumstances and lack of time

The participants mentioned that unforeseen events that occur during theday disrupt the schedules for the evaluation of teachers, but that it wasimportant that teacher evaluations prevail over unexpected events (3 April).

The participating supervisors felt that the PTE was both constructiveand relevant. But unfortunately the lack of time did not enable them to‘evaluate each teacher every year’ (3 April) in compliance with theprescribed schedule.

The workload incurred by teacher evaluations is as heavy at theelementary level as it is at the secondary level. For example, the positionof department heads in high school includes the responsibility of peersupervision: ‘Even at the secondary level, there are some [departmentheads] who have 8 teachers and who also work full-time, so it’s not easy.’(3 April). According to our participants, this added burden results inburnout for some, while others abandon their projects: ‘Yes, at one point,we just could not keep up, and in the end, the pedagogical committee justfell apart’ (3 April).

Reification: inherent obstacles within the PTE

The dual nature, the technical particularities, and the requirements ofthe PTE

The PTE is based on formative and summative evaluation, which mayentail an intensive evaluation ending in dismissal. For example, someteachers do not appreciate evaluation or a score that shows a lack ofcompetence. Regarding this particular situation, our participants reportedcases of contestation of the evaluation; in certain cases, the marksobtained were cause for concern. One supervisor recalled how: ‘… I putbasic because it corresponded to the criterion of basic. The person beingevaluated was really upset with that’ (15 May). The professional commu-nities of practice members stated that the dissatisfaction of teachers oftenregarded the Likert scale whose four levels do not permit measurement ofprogress from one year to the next.

Human and relational aspects of the PTE process

The PTE presupposes clear communication and a balanced relationshipbetween supervisor and supervisee, but this is sometimes difficult to

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

attain. One of our participants commented as to his own experience ofthe challenges related to this evaluation process:

The discussion you have with the individual you’ve just evaluated is so fragile … this person

has opened themselves completely to you——I’m exaggerating, but it’s like they’re naked. And

you get there and sometimes you may have had a bad day or you’ve chosen the wrong word …

(15 May, 2006)

Similar to the written report, there is the Planning and Preparationphase of the process. This first step of the evaluation process consists of ameeting with the teacher. Also called the preparatory interview, this steprequires that the supervisor use a language that is clear and exempt of anyambiguity or insinuation. One participant spoke of a case in which thecommunication was confusing because of the use of the indefinite ‘we’rather than ‘I’:

… then we started to talk about climate and how she felt about the personnel. I told her that

we had noticed… and when I said ‘we’, she retorted that she had a problem with the use of

the ‘we’. (15 May)

Supervisory differentiation

Evaluating a teacher is an individual task. Each time, the supervisor musttake into consideration the teacher’s level and follow up on the previousyear’s evaluation. One of our participants involved in evaluation made thiscomment: ‘We don’t evaluate all of our personnel the same way. Eachone is at a certain level’ (3 April).

The professional communities of practice members believed that they,as supervisors, encouraged teachers to adopt differentiated pedagogicalpractices and to individualize their teaching activities to meet the needs oftheir students, and that they, as supervisors, should individualize theirsupervision to adapt to the needs of those they supervise. One of ourparticipants made this comment regarding this differentiation in thesupervision process: ‘Supervisees cannot be all the same; you can’t haveuniform supervision’ (3 April).

In this process, the teachers begin with a self-evaluation, then propose3 out the 49 PTE elements they would like to work on during the yearand on which they will be evaluated. The interview with the supervisorhelps to validate this choice and to identify the resources which the super-visor must make available for the supervisee in order to meet their needs.A supervisor said: ‘And if I identify a certain need in a certain person andif this same person has identified that same need and wishes to work onthat, what do I organise?, What do I give him, then?’ (3 April).

Data collection

Observation grids and data collection tools are crucial when evaluatingteachers. They are indispensable not only during classroom observationsbut also during the initial interview in determining which aspects are to

72 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

be evaluated during the year. The evaluation grids were unavailableduring the professional communities of practice’s first year in 2005. Fourof its members, during the course of their Master’s degree, elaboratedthese grids as part of a group project led by the moderator. During oneprofessional communities of practice session, they explained how theybuilt these grids. One participant, who had developed a grid on the levelof student pride, explained how she built her grid from research and datacollected in the field from teachers, principals and students. She said: ‘Ithink that, yes, we should look at what has been written and see ifsomething exists. My research got me out into the schools because theliterature was not concrete enough’ (12 December). Another participantexplained the relevance of having the choice of a checklist rather than theLikert-type scale to evaluate each item on his grid and pointed out thelimitations of this checklist:

It’s only a yes or a no, present or absent, like a check list. It doesn’t tell us much; a behaviour

may be present one time, so it is present, so I check ‘present’. Does that make it all right? It

really depends. (15 May)

On the other hand, one member commented that his pre-service train-ing was long ago and that even with the evaluation grids, being a supervi-sor remained very demanding, as he had to learn and understand themand integrate the information therein. He said: ‘I evaluate one and theother, these different grids; I have to learn them and I have to be able torespond to the teachers’ expectations as well’ (3 April).

Evaluation report

During one session of the nine meetings, the participants presented anddiscussed their own evaluation reports of their teachers and commentedon the limitations of these reports. They also underscored the importanceof writing with clarity, presenting only that which was measurable andobservable, and discussed the concept of professionalism. Some membersmentioned that it was not necessary to write everything in the report, tosuggest the more formative aspect of the evaluation (15 May).

Introducing change in supervision practices

Identifying mentor teachers. The professional communities of practicemembers stressed the importance of providing mentoring to support newteachers during their first year. In response to the lack of sufficient mentorteachers, some members invited their colleagues to group together teach-ers whose expertise was complementary. One advised: ‘Try to organise ateam of two, three people who teach that together’. He also recom-mended delegating tasks to certain staff members: ‘If I have a solidteacher in my school, maybe I should approach this person and say:“Look, for the next year, could you do this for me, could you handle apart of this task?”’ The participants added that by delegate, they did not

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

mean hand it completely over to the other person: ‘This person should beguided’ (15 May). Otherwise, this person who is now involved in mentor-ing considers the assigned task as a burden or even a punishment, asmentioned by one participant, who said: ‘It happened to me, and theperson whom we asked to take something on because she was solid, well,it created a real problem. That person came to think “I’m being punishedbecause I’m good”’ (15 May).

Promoting collaboration. While they agreed that collaboration had apositive effect on their teachers’ practice, professional communities ofpractice members mentioned the difficulties regarding the developmentof collaboration. One said: ‘It’s because the new one comes into a solidlyestablished team, he is welcomed, supported, there is a sharing ofmaterial that occurs, you develop this culture within the different teams’(15 May). Some offered their ideas on promoting collaboration. Asupervisor said:

We are going to set up the means to provide collaboration. If a teacher wants an informal visit,

if she wants to visit another teacher to see how she works, we will really encourage this, but it

doesn’t result in a report. (3 April)

However, efforts to establish collaboration meet structural problems,notably in small schools where only one class exists per level. This situa-tion forces the teacher to collaborate with teachers from other schools.One supervisor said:

One problem in a learning community is with one of our schools——with only one teacher per

grade——is to try to determine the common needs. With our schools, we try to organise meet-

ings for specific grades where they actually get to discuss things amongst themselves, among

schools. For example, all of our first-grade teachers meet every Tuesday. (27 February).

Because of the heterogeneity of teachers’ demands, a challenge of col-laborating is peculiar to the grade level. Some members expounded onteacher collaboration:

It’s another problem, when you have a school with kindergarten to 8th grade, trying to find

some common ground. Sometimes, we can separate ourselves in two, as in one session for the

kindergarten, 2nd and 3rd grade levels, and one for the 4th to 8th grade levels. (3 April)

This collaboration is done as much between members of the sameschool as it is with members of other elementary schools in the regionwhose students will all attend the same high school. One participant said:‘We mostly discuss our common interests, student transition from the 8thto the 9th grade, and the needs with regard to teacher education’ (3 April).

Encouraging long-term goals. Members stated that professional communi-ties of practice were now beginning to be encouraged and be integrated inschools, but that teachers were resistant to change because of their lack ofmotivation to do so, their disagreements with one or another group mem-ber, their unwillingness to join the group, their criticism of the slow workpace and not seeing the possible long-term results. One supervisor saidthis about the pace of change: ‘communities, it’s not in one or two years

74 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

that we’ll see any miracles. We have to give communities time to act, andfor people, the time to see how it can help’ (27 February).

Benefits for supervisor and supervisee

Being prepared. Several proposed solutions that benefit both supervisorand supervisee. The professional communities of practice members feltthat how well the teacher was prepared had a direct effect on studentlearning and classroom climate, as one said:

everything depends on how well you are prepared. We’ve seen teachers who were prepared, it

was extraordinary planning, their teaching was significant, great activities, the students were

active. And in another class, it was more difficult, we observed the teacher’s lesson plan and

there was a lot missing. (3 April)

Encouraging self-evaluation while emphasizing the challenges related tomitigating one’s difficulties. One professional communities of practicemember suggested that following the observation, the supervised teachershould be encouraged to do a self-evaluation by asking him/her questionssuch as:

How did you feel? How did it go? How did the students behave? It’s your feeling. Then all at

once he talks and talks and talks and you guide him in that regard … You let the person give

you the facts, you let the person fill in the blanks. (15 May)

Should a supervised teacher choose not to discuss, refuse to admit or iseven unable to identify his or her difficulties, the supervisor might tact-fully push him or her by identifying a specific challenge. One supervisornoted:

But it’s true, when you get a teacher who doesn’t want to … you know, that it’s “all okay”,

you have to push further and say “no”, this is what I observed and this is what you have to

work on. (15 May)

Connection with the supervised teacher. Supervision requires a solid rapportbetween supervisor and supervisee. A problematic aspect of this supervi-sion is the dual purposes of formative and summative types of evaluation.The relationships are characterized by hierarchy and by control. Thesupervisor may lead the supervised individual towards an intensive evalua-tion involving external evaluators. Thus, in this hierarchical context, theperson being evaluated may not open up when a problem arises. One ofthe supervisors said:

It [the supervisor] may be a person who represents authority, and you have always said that

yes, as soon as you find out that there’s an evaluation, there’s a sort of distance that is created,

whereas with the mentor, it seems to work differently. (15 May)

The problems stemming from the summative evaluation are numer-ous, hindering progress, the basic goal of the PTE. One response is tohide the problem:

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

There are many people who are in this program and they confide they do not hesitate to go

and see the teacher when they have discipline problems, but if this person becomes their super-

visor, they will tend to hide their problems instead. (27 February)

Providing feedback and clarifying expectations. Using a case study, the pro-fessional communities of practice members emphasized the importance offeedback and of an improvement plan in which teachers identified threeelements they wanted to work on as well as personal goals to strive forand the means to achieve these goals. Pointing out deficiencies meanslittle, if there is no improvement plan and no proposed solutions.According to the participants, feedback was crucial during supervision;however, they acknowledged that in their practice, they themselves didnot provide feedback. One participant said:

You can criticise all you want, but if I critique someone and I don’t propose any solutions,

then I’m not helping the teacher. And I’m sure there are supervisors who don’t always provide

feedback, and I’m not perfect, I probably do the same thing. (15 May)

To encourage the supervised teachers to reach their goals, positivereinforcement seems to work best. While the fast pace often forcessupervisors to only look at what does not work, positive reinforcement hasits place in maintaining and encouraging successful practices.

Fostering different styles of supervision. Certain professional communitiesof practice members believed that it was important not to be limitedto being the only ones supervising the teachers, but to welcome otherforms of supervision. Self-evaluation by the teacher is something whichcan be done in the initial part of the process when the supervised tea-cher is asked to identify on which aspects he/she wishes to be evalu-ated. Some members felt that supervisors must promote other types ofsupervision, such as peer supervision. Some participants said that theyhad proposed peer supervision to their superiors, but that the lattermaintained the idea that supervision was the sole responsibility of theschool principals. One participant said: ‘We asked for peer evaluations,but it did not go through. They told us that it was the principal’s job’(3 April).

Writing it down. According to one professional communities of practicemember, supervisors should write a report on each substitute teacher whoconstitutes a problem and send it to the district; otherwise this teachermight keep obtaining a position. The participant said:

Here is some advice. We all have a tendency to do that. When we have a problem with a sub,

it’s important to write it down and send it to the district. What can happen is that these people

will go on to do a long-term replacement or get a position, and it’s not right. And if we talk

about it amongst us and we say that it was like that when they worked here, that means that

there was no written report. (12 December)

Respecting the various teaching styles and practices. Regarding this aspect,one supervisor said:

76 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

At our school, there is a grade 8 teacher. She’s an excellent teacher, the students love

her, the parents love her, but there is very rigid discipline, the children are afraid to

breathe in the classroom. When I enter the room, I tell myself that I could never teach

like that, but the results are there. Her system works well. It’s her way of managing

discipline. (3 April)

Among the solutions aimed at the supervisors, the professional com-munities of practice members commented on the importance of consoli-dating the experience of pedagogical leadership by providing support forschool principals who are far removed from professional development andwhat goes on in the classroom, and thus of being well informed regardingthe actual teaching challenges in New Brunswick schools. The membersproposed, among other things, that the pedagogical capsule be retained.This particular concept refers to the brief summary of a pedagogical prin-ciple like, for example, metacognition. One member said: ‘For me, I’mstill doing my master’s, I’m still taking courses and I would still like tohave the pedagogical capsules’ (3 April). He added:

It’s always been like that, it’s the history of the school system where professional development

was not really present. Sure, it’s a culture that needs to change, and in what I’ve read in the lit-

erature, anyway, in terms of leadership, in terms of school principals, they say that it’s where it

begins, but they say that it’s the principals who set the tone for the school, it’s the principals

who will enable their teachers to do that. And from what I see, you want to do it, but the time

and the funds just aren’t there. (27 February)

Being equipped. Aside from the supervision grids developed by a sub-group as part of their master’s thesis, the professional communities ofpractice members shared other tools, such as a system to manage tea-cher absences and substitute teacher evaluations. One member said:‘When you look at content knowledge, it’s in there. When you look atknowledge of the pedagogy, it’s in there, knowledge of the students, charac-teristics, learning levels’ (12 December). The problems evoked by themembers during the first year were attributed, among other things, tothe lack of adequate observation grids, which were not available duringthe professional communities of practice’s first year. During the 2006meetings, however, the members had the document and used the gridsto collect data. Some members stated that supervision was only reward-ing for the person being supervised, while others felt that it was also ofbenefit to the supervisor, who improves on his teaching and supervisoryabilities by observing different teaching methods. One member recalledthis improvement:

As for me, when I evaluate people, when I go in and observe them. I learn a lot too. But it’s

taking the time when I go to observe them, I have the time to write things down, then, meet

with them afterwards. (15 May, 2006)

This finding converges with Waite, who noted that when resourcesand information are available to them, teachers demonstrate their abilityto perform tasks of supervision. He reported that the supervisors them-selves recognize and learn more about teaching when they hold theresponsibility of supervisor (Waite, 1997, p. 61).

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Summary

This article reports on a community of practice comprised of schoolprincipals, vice principals and department heads who sought toappropriate changes brought about in teacher evaluation.

Participation

The members spoke of several obstacles impeding the integration of thePTE. These had to do with: (a) the school system itself (legalities,mandatory school age and integration of special needs students, lack ofadequate human and material resources, pre-service training and profes-sional development), and (b) the very nature of the job (having the dualrole of administrator and pedagogical advisor).

Reification

Aside from the system-related problems hindering an effective implemen-tation of the PTE, the professional communities of practice membersmentioned: challenges related to the programme’s dual characteristics(formative and summative evaluation)——which could become intensive;the technical aspects and programme requirements and ways to success-fully change from one form of teacher evaluation to another.

To successfully integrate the changes in teacher evaluation practices,various solutions were proposed:

(1) Resources management, by identifying teacher-mentors, encouragingcollaboration and promoting a long-term vision;

(2) greater pedagogical supervision in terms of:

(a) the person being supervised, with the focus on preparing teachers;providing them with fast, positive feedback; clarifying the expecta-tions towards them; encouraging different styles of supervision;favouring written evaluation reports; and respecting the differentteaching styles; and

(b) The supervisor, by providing better evaluation tools and specifictraining for this new position.

In short, the professional communities of practice members met toexamine the implementation of changes to a teacher evaluation pro-gramme. In this setting, they shared their individual experiences (participa-tion), developed data collection grids and discussed these grids and thebasic principles to be considered in a teacher evaluation process: self-evalu-ation, feedback, evaluation reports. With the help of the reference material(grids, oral feedback standards, and written reports) and the variouspossibilities to enhance evaluations, such as self-evaluations and peer evalu-ations, this community of practice was able to balance participation by cre-

78 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

ating significant knowledge from actual contexts. In fact, common experi-ences and interests were what maintained this participation. The profes-sional communities of practice members shared a common interest in theirpractice as supervisors and were able to communicate this. Throughout thenine professional communities of practice meetings, they shared their expe-riences, went over the grids elaborated by four of the members, discussedthe challenges involved in their role of teaching supervisor and grewthrough the professional communities of practice experience.

The participants discussed the use of grids, which they considered notonly mandatory, but indispensable.

Our thinking was guided by the theoretical constructs informing learn-ing in the community of practice setting: the practice, or learning by doing(Wenger, 1998). By working through their respective experiences, the com-munity members were able to consolidate their practices and put othermembers’ experiences into perspective. They discussed their respectiveexperiences of supervision, whether good or bad. Working to master newtools gave the members a fresh perspective on the experiences of others.They were thus better equipped to change their practice by using observa-tion grids that were both chosen and shared ahead of time with the teacher.

The goal of the professional communities of practice was to betterunderstand the PTE to effectively apply it when evaluating personnel.This goal was shared by each professional communities of practicemember. Despite the constraints, the group invested in the process in aspirit of collaboration. Interestingly, the professional communities ofpractices’ activities were suspended for a time due to a teachers’ strike.The members took up the meetings the following year with renewedenthusiasm.

Our professional communities of practice were guided by the sharedleadership of its members, who agreed to talk about their respectivepractices, share their material, present a supervision case for study,discuss how they developed evaluation grids under the guidance of one ofthe moderators, and their evaluation reports. Under the guidance of amoderator, the members developed tools which constitute the makings ofthe development of common resources (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Printy, 2004;Wenger, 1998).

Implications

The change in teaching staff evaluation by school principals was complex.This complexity is related to factors such as the little known effects onschool success, control, and hierarchical connotations (Goldsberry, 1997).Among the criticisms related to the teaching staff evaluation, are these: itbenefits the organization more than the teacher; it does not evaluate allaspects of teaching; the modes of evaluation, even though they may becouched in democratic language (like the evaluation by peers), remain aninstrument of the management, which delegates this duty to teachers inorder to achieve this “dirty work” (Waite, 1997).

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

We did find a willingness by school principals in the professionalcommunities of practice to work together in order to share their tools,their understanding of the principal duties and their ways of doing thingswhen they face the challenges related to the teacher evaluation. Themeetings of the communities made possible the sharing of the supervisors’practices; the understanding of the communities’ context where the mainprinciples are autonomy, collaboration with peers (Tremblay, 2005),learning through group collaboration, commitment (Newmann et al.,2001; Sackney et al., 2005; Tremblay, 2005), action and reflexion (Sack-ney, 2007).

The knowledge acquired in the communities’ context can eventuallybe applied to the teaching staff. We must remember that change forschool principals is a common occurrence. This is why it is important toarticulate good preparation for principals regarding the management ofchange. We must point out that we are concerned with the professionaldevelopment of the teaching staff as much as the professional develop-ment of the school principals. In this perspective, if the preparation pro-grammes for school principals are not well adjusted to the challenges ofchange, it is imperative to find the means by which the principals canlearn the skills for the management of change in schools in a role charac-terized by its isolation.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, whichfunded this project, District 11, which authorized its staff to participate inthis Professional Learning Communities and the participants.

References

Anderson, J. B. (2008). Principal’s role and public primary school’s effectiveness in four Latin Ameri-

can cities. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 36–60.

Assented to February 28, 1997. Retrieved from http://www.gnb.ca/0062/pdf-acts/e-01-12.pdf

Borzillo, S. (2007). Communities of practice to actively manage best practices. Wiesbaden: Deutscher

Universitats-Verlag.

Bouchamma, Y. (2005). Evaluating teaching personnel. Which model of supervision do Canadian

teachers prefer? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 289–308.

Bouchamma, Y. (2006). School principals’ perceptions of personal and professional efficacy with

regards to teacher supervision in New Brunswick. Journal of Educational Administration and

Foundations, 17, 9–23.

Bourhis, A., & Tremblay, D. G. (2004). Les facteurs organisationnels de succes des communautes de

pratique virtuelles [Organizational factors of success of the community’s of virtual practice].

Quebec: Cefrio. Collection Recherche et Etudes de cas.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a

unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.

Buchel, B., & Raub, S. (2002). Building knowledge-creating value networks. European Management

Journal, 20, 587–596.

Cate, J. M., Vaughn, C. A., & O’Hair, M. J. (2006). A 17-year case study of an elementary school’s

journey: From traditional school to learning community to democratic school community. Jour-

nal of School Leadership, 16, 86–111.

80 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Davel, E., & Tremblay, D.-G. (2005). L’apprentissage par la pratique; les defis [Learning by doing, the

challenges]. Quebec: Tele-universite.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhanc-

ing Student Achievement. National Educational Service, Bloomington, IN.; Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED426472.

Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Dufour, R. (2004). Premiers pas: Transformation culturelle de l’ecole en

communaute d’apprentissage professionnelle [Getting Started: Cultural Transformation in the

school community’ Professional learning]. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Goldsberry, L. (1997). Do teachers benefit from supervision? Yes. In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.),

Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies (pp. 43–55). Norwood, MA:

Christopher-Gordon.

Government of new Brunswick CHAPTER E-1.12 CHAPITRE E-1.12 Education Act. Retrieved

from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xDDwrKyP6doJ:www.gnb.ca/0062/pdf-acts/

e-01-12.pdf+loi+sur+l’instruction+publique%2B+Nouveau-Brunswick&hl=fr&gl=ca&pid=bl&s

rcid=ADGEESj-F0qolRflvtIliYdPRlVTOkiOUX_GJJmYqWiHcjqbaiAwDAtuO9OZaHx7HHfp

1_Cjp1RpFK8oPAcb9JF5_RIKSZZyW6GQZDjaZ5CjFRe-9tRWxp8Z-aIQP0CIXIZTfnZeaT6

7&sig=AHIEtbT7IRN5ZfQALB1QhNRRujBcexTzdQ

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to

fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221–239.

Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day,

D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves, & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school

improvement (pp. 55–71). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional policy for effective schools.

Toronto: OISE Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, L. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Michinov, N. (2003). Les communautes (virtuelles) de pratique: un bref apercu [The (virtual) communi-

ties of practice: a brief overview]. Retrieved fromhttp://www2.univ-poitiers.fr/michinov/com-

practice.html/.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2006). Building schools, building people: The school principal’s role in

leading a learning community. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 627–640.

New Brunswick, Department of Education (1999). Programme d’evaluation du personnel enseignant [Assess-

ment program for teachers]. Retrieved from http://www.gnb.ca/0000/progs/evalf/99327.pdf.

New Brunswick, Department of Education/Office of the Premier (2003). Quality learning agenda:

Ten-year vision to strengthen N.B.’s education system (03/04/23). Retrieved from http://www.

gnb.ca/cnb/news/edu/2003e0414ed.htm.

Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). School instructional program coherence:

Benefits and challenges. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Nolan, J., & Hoover, L. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley/Jossey-Bass Education.

Powers, S., & Guan, S. (2000). Examining the range of student needs in the design and development

of a web-based course. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based educa-

tion (pp. 200–216). Hershey, PA: Idea.

Printy, S. M. (2004). The professional impact of communities of practice. UCEA Review, 46,

2023.

Probst, G., & Borzillo, S. (2007). Piloter les communautes de pratique avec succes [Pilot communi-

ties of practice with success]. Revue francaise de gestion, 1(170), 135–153.

Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning

communities. Educational Technology and Society, 3, 384–392.

Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developing teaching? Teachers and

teaching Theory and Practice, 9, 175–186.

Sackney, L., Mitchell, C., & Walker K. (2005, April) Building capacity for learning communities: A

case study of fifteen successful schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ameri-

can Educational Research association, Montreal, Quebec.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sackney, L. (2007). History of the school effectiveness and improvement movement in Canada over

the past 25 years. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and

improvement, volume 1 (pp. 167–182). Dordrecht: Springer.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2007). Leadership and scholl effectiveness and improvement. In T. Town-

send (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement, volume 2 (pp. 635–658).

Dordrecht: Springer.

Tremblay (2005). Les communautes de pratique: Quels sont les facteurs de succes? [Communities of

Practice: What are the success factors?] Revue internationale sur le travail et la societe, octobre

2005.

Waite, D. (1992). Instructional supervision from a Situational Perspective. Teaching and Teacher Edu-

cation, 8, 319–332.

Waite, D. (1997). Do teachers benefit from supervision? No. In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Edu-

cational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies (pp. 56–66). Norwood, MA: Christo-

pher-Gordon.

Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organisational frontier. Harvard

Business Review, 139–145.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide

to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

82 Y. BOUCHAMMA AND C. MICHAUD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

17 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014