relationships between primary school teachers' perceived learning outcomes of collaboration,...

8
Relationships between primary school teachers' perceived learning outcomes of collaboration, foci and learning activities J.J. Doppenberg a,b, , P.J. den Brok a , A.W.E.A. Bakx c a Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands b Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Deventer, The Netherlands c Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands abstract article info Article history: Received 6 October 2012 Received in revised form 11 July 2013 Accepted 27 August 2013 Keywords: Collaborative learning Teacher learning Primary education Learning outcomes Learning activities Foci of collaboration The importance of teacher collaborative learning is generally accepted. Nevertheless, little is known about what such collaborative learning looks like or what teachers learn from their collaborations during their everyday work. By comparing teacher learning within different contexts of collaboration across a large variety of schools, the present study hopes to show how collaborative learning varies in form and effect in different contexts of col- laboration. The present study examined primary school teachers' perceived learning outcomes in relation to the frequency with which teachers perceived learning activities to occur in their collaboration with colleagues, as well as in relation to different foci of their collaboration. Three different foci as context of teacher collaboration were distinguished: (1) implementing new lesson materials, (2) implementing a new teaching approach, and (3) teaching a particular grade level group. A questionnaire was administered to 411 teachers from 49 schools, asking for their perceptions of the frequency of collaborative learning activities within three different foci as con- text of collaboration, and their perceived learning outcomes in these contexts. Findings show that engaging in collaborative activities related positively to learning outcomes in all foci. The least learning outcomes were per- ceived within the collaboration focussing on teaching a particular grade level group. Learning activities and foci of collaboration had both a unique as well as a joint effect on learning outcomes. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Collaboration of teachers in the practice of their everyday school con- text is recognised as a crucial factor in teacher learning (McLaughin & Talbert, 2006; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Westheimer, 2008). During collaboration teachers can undertake activities like exchanging ideas or experiences and as a result of these activities teachers can learn individu- ally, but a group of teachers can also develop new and shared understand- ings (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Although collaboration has been recognised as a powerful context for teacher learn- ing, relatively little is known about actual collaborative learning in school contexts and about how learning activities undertaken in collaboration with colleagues are related to learning outcomes (Borko, 2004; Hindin, Morocco, Mott, & Aguilar, 2007; Little, 2002). The absence of this knowl- edge can be explained by the fact that most studies on teacher learning exclusively focussed on investigating the learning activities (Hoekstra, Korthagen, Brekelmans, Beijaard, & Imants, 2009). The few studies that explicitly addressed the relationship between learning activities and learning outcomes mainly focussed on teachers' individual learning out- comes, even though they measured learning in the context of collabora- tion (e.g., Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2010). In addition, most studies were small-scale qualitative research studies and as a result these studies restricted themselves to one specic collaborative context within one particular school. The distinguished types of learning activities and learning outcomes as a result of these studies were informative with respect to the specic contexts within which these were investigated. Nevertheless, these specic contexts can differ to a large extent within and between schools and, as a result, the distinguished learning activities and learning outcomes are difcult to compare between studies (Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner, 2010; Stoll & Louis, 2007). Thus, little can be inferred as to how various contexts are related to learning activities and outcomes. Comparison of collaborative contexts is complicated as these may differ from case to case regarding the dimensions of focus and setting. In many studies, the focus of collaboration refers to a specic innovation in the school, while the setting refers to the size and nature of the group of teachers involved and formal and informal structures within and across schools (Doppenberg, den Brok, & Bakx, 2012). In the present study it is assumed that different contexts of collaboration can be com- pared between schools, taking into account teachers' perceived learning activities and learning outcomes, for one dimension of collaboration at a time. Results of a previous interview study (Doppenberg, Bakx, & den Brok, 2012) showed that in various collaborative settings, different Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 18 Corresponding author at: Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 402473095, +31 628232648 (private). E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.J. Doppenberg), [email protected] (P.J. den Brok), [email protected] (A.W.E.A. Bakx). 1041-6080/$ see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.003 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Upload: awea

Post on 23-Dec-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / l ind i f

Relationships between primary school teachers' perceived learningoutcomes of collaboration, foci and learning activities

J.J. Doppenberg a,b,⁎, P.J. den Brok a, A.W.E.A. Bakx c

a Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlandsb Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Deventer, The Netherlandsc Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

⁎ Corresponding author at: Eindhoven School of EducTechnology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Neth+31 628232648 (private).

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.J. Doppe(P.J. den Brok), [email protected] (A.W.E.A. Bakx).

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.08.003

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 October 2012Received in revised form 11 July 2013Accepted 27 August 2013

Keywords:Collaborative learningTeacher learningPrimary educationLearning outcomesLearning activitiesFoci of collaboration

The importance of teacher collaborative learning is generally accepted. Nevertheless, little is known about whatsuch collaborative learning looks like or what teachers learn from their collaborations during their everydaywork. By comparing teacher learning within different contexts of collaboration across a large variety of schools,the present study hopes to show how collaborative learning varies in form and effect in different contexts of col-laboration. The present study examined primary school teachers' perceived learning outcomes in relation to thefrequency with which teachers perceived learning activities to occur in their collaboration with colleagues, aswell as in relation to different foci of their collaboration. Three different foci as context of teacher collaborationwere distinguished: (1) implementing new lesson materials, (2) implementing a new teaching approach, and(3) teaching a particular grade level group. A questionnaire was administered to 411 teachers from 49 schools,asking for their perceptions of the frequency of collaborative learning activities within three different foci as con-text of collaboration, and their perceived learning outcomes in these contexts. Findings show that engaging incollaborative activities related positively to learning outcomes in all foci. The least learning outcomes were per-ceivedwithin the collaboration focussing on teaching a particular grade level group. Learning activities and foci ofcollaboration had both a unique as well as a joint effect on learning outcomes.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Collaboration of teachers in the practice of their everyday school con-text is recognised as a crucial factor in teacher learning (McLaughin &Talbert, 2006; Richardson & Placier, 2001; Westheimer, 2008). Duringcollaboration teachers can undertake activities like exchanging ideas orexperiences and as a result of these activities teachers can learn individu-ally, but a groupof teachers can also developnewand sharedunderstand-ings (Crossan, Lane, &White, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Althoughcollaboration has been recognised as a powerful context for teacher learn-ing, relatively little is known about actual collaborative learning in schoolcontexts and about how learning activities undertaken in collaborationwith colleagues are related to learning outcomes (Borko, 2004; Hindin,Morocco, Mott, & Aguilar, 2007; Little, 2002). The absence of this knowl-edge can be explained by the fact that most studies on teacher learningexclusively focussed on investigating the learning activities (Hoekstra,Korthagen, Brekelmans, Beijaard, & Imants, 2009). The few studies thatexplicitly addressed the relationship between learning activities and

ation, Eindhoven University oferlands. Tel.: +31 402473095,

nberg), [email protected]

ghts reserved.

learning outcomes mainly focussed on teachers' individual learning out-comes, even though they measured learning in the context of collabora-tion (e.g., Bakkenes, Vermunt, & Wubbels, 2010). In addition, moststudies were small-scale qualitative research studies and as a resultthese studies restricted themselves to one specific collaborative contextwithin one particular school. The distinguished types of learning activitiesand learning outcomes as a result of these studies were informative withrespect to the specific contexts within which these were investigated.Nevertheless, these specific contexts can differ to a large extent withinand between schools and, as a result, the distinguished learning activitiesand learning outcomes are difficult to compare between studies (Borko,Jacobs, & Koellner, 2010; Stoll & Louis, 2007). Thus, little can be inferredas to howvarious contexts are related to learning activities and outcomes.

Comparison of collaborative contexts is complicated as these maydiffer from case to case regarding the dimensions of focus and setting.Inmany studies, the focus of collaboration refers to a specific innovationin the school, while the setting refers to the size and nature of the groupof teachers involved and formal and informal structures within andacross schools (Doppenberg, den Brok, & Bakx, 2012). In the presentstudy it is assumed that different contexts of collaboration can be com-pared between schools, taking into account teachers' perceived learningactivities and learning outcomes, for one dimension of collaboration at atime. Results of a previous interview study (Doppenberg, Bakx, & denBrok, 2012) showed that in various collaborative settings, different

Table 1Overview of teachers' collaborative learning activities (Doppenberg, Bakx, et al., 2012).

Collaborative learning activities Description

Categories Subcategories

Storytellingand scanning

Listening Listening to information, experiences, ideas andteaching methods

Informing Informing about the (state of) work (in progress) ofa group

Observing Observing colleagues' teaching methodsAid andassistance

Askingquestions

Asking questions or help

Givingfeedback

Giving or receiving feedback

Organising Organising school projectsSharing Exchanging Exchanging and/or discussing information

(knowledge), experiences, ideas and teachingmethods

Joint work Evaluating Series of activities consisting of:

- making a plan to improve school development- evaluating the plan- adapting the plan

Developing Series of activities consisting of:

- becoming absorbed in a subject of school de-velopment

- developing a subject of school developmentIntervision Series of activities consisting of:

- asking help by telling a problem- asking questions for clarification- giving or receiving feedback

Collegialsupport(betweentwoteachers)

Collegialvisitation

Series of activities consisting of:

- asking questions or help- observing colleagues' teaching methods- giving or receiving feedback

Coaching Series of activities consisting of:

- asking questions and/or help- giving or receiving feedback

2 J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

types and amounts of learning activities and learning outcomes wereperceived.Whereas the previous study focussed on the setting of collab-oration, the present study emphasizes the focus of collaboration.

As such, the present questionnaire study aims to contribute to a bet-ter understanding of collaborative learning by investigating primaryschool teachers' perceived learning outcomes in relation to unique andjoint associations with teachers' perceived collaborative learning activi-ties and foci of collaboration, taking into account differences betweenschools. Tomake it possible to compare collaborative learning processesbetween schools, a scope that encompasses and compares multiple fociof collaboration seems necessary, and can be regarded as a valuable ad-dition to the existing line of research (Borko et al., 2010).

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Collaborative learning activities

Studies on teachers' learning activities show that the types of collab-oration distinguished by Little (1990) are generally accepted and can beused to categorise collaborative learning activities (e.g., Henze, 2006;Kwakman, 2003). Little (1990) distinguished four types of collaborationbased on the degree of interdependency and collegiality: (1) storytell-ing and scanning, (2) aid and assistance, (3) sharing and (4) jointwork. The first category, ‘storytelling and scanning’, refers to interac-tions that are characterised by low interdependency between teachersas well as low collective autonomy. Within the next categories, theinterdependency and the collective autonomy increase, with the lastcategory ‘joint work’ referring to the highest level of interdependencybetween teachers and a high level of collective autonomy (Little,1990). Results of a prior study by Doppenberg, Bakx, et al. (2012)showed the distinction in these four types to be valuable and appropri-ate. However, this study also showed that a fifth category of ‘collegialsupport’ might be distinguished. ‘Collegial support’ are distinctivefrom the other categories of collaboration, especially joint work, be-cause in this type two teachers are involved (and not more), fromwhich one is often especially trained to help the other teacher, and be-cause they are specifically organised and do not occur in regular set-tings, like the other types of activities (Doppenberg, Bakx, et al., 2012).Table 1 presents the five categories of teachers' collaborative learningactivities.

2.2. Foci of collaboration

The distinguished contexts for collaborative learning of teachers inthe present study refer to different foci of collaboration. In other re-search, two characteristics of foci are often mentioned: (1) the focusof collaboration should emerge out of teachers' everyday work, and(2) should be related to teaching practices and/or pupils' learning(Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005; James, Dunning,Connolly, & Elliott, 2007; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Orland-Barak &Tillema, 2006). Two commonly distinguished foci of collaboration ascontexts for teacher learning are (1) implementing new lesson mate-rials, and (2) implementing a new pedagogical or didactical approachto teaching (hereafter named: implementing a new teaching approach)(e.g., Bakkenes et al., 2010; Henze, 2006). In addition, in our previous in-terview study another specific focus of collaboration could be distin-guished, more specifically related to the domain of primary schools,especially in the Netherlands, namely teaching a particular grade levelgroup (hereafter named: teaching a particular group). In Dutch primaryschools, many teachers are working part-time and as a result they sharethe responsibility for the education of their classwith another colleague(58%; STAMOS, 2009). Thus, these teachers have to collaborate regularlyto discuss and align the education in their group. Obviously, this thirdfocus of collaboration is of a different nature than the other two. Thefirst two foci refer to the implementation of an educational innovationat the school level, in which often all teachers working at the school

are involved. The third focus refers to the education of a particulargrade level group at the class level, in which often two to four teachersare involved. All three foci concern learning opportunities that usuallyoccur over a longer period of time; weeks, months or even years (Borkoet al., 2010). Naturally, the three foci are formulated in a general fashionand can entail various more specific innovations in practice. Therefore,the foci are applicable to a large variety of schools.

2.3. Learning outcomes

In the present study learning outcomes as a result of collaborativelearning activities are defined as any change in knowledge, beliefsand/or behaviour (cf., Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2007). Teacher canlearn individually, but groups of teachers can also share their learning(Simons & Ruijters, 2001). Shared learning outcomes develop whenteachers' individual interpretations and actions come together or areintegrated (Coburn, 2001; Crossan et al., 1999; Spillane, Reiser, &Reimer, 2002).

Our previous interview study showed that learning outcomes couldrefer to individual and shared outcomes, but also to outcomes withrespect to colleagues, for example, changes in beliefs about colleagues.Collegial outcomes seem to be of a rather different nature than individualor shared outcomes; they partly overlap but also find themselves in be-tween individual and shared learning outcomes. Our previous interviewstudy showed that collegial outcomes were perceived by teachers as aseparate outcome, rather than as a component of individual or sharedoutcomes (Doppenberg, Bakx, et al., 2012). Therefore, it seems useful todistinguish a third category of learning outcomes in addition to individualand shared, namely: collegial learning outcomes.

3J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

2.4. The relationship between learning outcomes, learning activities andfoci of collaboration

The literature seems still rather inconclusive with respect to whattype of learning activities or foci of collaboration result in what type oflearning outcomes. Several studies refer to interdependency betweencollaborating teachers, from which it is assumed that the higher thelevel of interdependency, the more teachers learn from each other(Hammerness et al., 2005; Little, 1990; Meirink, Imants, Meijer, &Verloop, 2010). Little (1990) concludes that teachers who undertake‘joint work’ activities are to a high extent dependent on each other,and that such activities result in better and higher learning outcomescompared to other types of activities. In addition, results of qualitativestudies have shown that low-interdependency activities are preliminaryto and exist alongside high-interdependency activities (e.g., Shank,2006). In fact, based on prior studies, it is to be expected that high-levelinterdependency activities will be scarce and will be less present in allcontexts and foci than low-level interdependency activities (Imants,2003; Kwakman, 2003). An important aspect underlying the assumptionof interdependency is that increased interdependency entails changes inthe frequency of teachers' collaborations (Little, 1990), suggesting thatthe frequency of collaborative learning activities is related to learning out-comes as well. Moreover, based on the results of other studies, it isexpected that all collaborative learning activities positively relate to learn-ing outcomes, as well as that joint work activities aremost strongly relat-ed to learning outcomes.

During the foci of collaboration ‘implementing a new teachingapproach’ and ‘implementing new lesson materials’ more teachers areinvolved in learning and the collaboration is more formally organised.Thus, it is expected that these fociwill result inmore learning outcomes,than the focus ‘teaching a particular group’. In addition, from the imple-mentation of new lessonmaterials it is known, that teachers not alwaysuse the full potential of the provided learning opportunities (Ball &Cohen, 1996). Therefore, it is expected that the focus ‘implementing anew teaching approach’ will show most learning outcomes.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

To obtain a large sample for the study, primary school leaders in thesouth-eastern part of the Netherlands were contacted via various com-munication methods, such as telephone conversations and email.School leaders who had agreed to participate subsequently distributedthe questionnaires to the teachers working at their schools. A total of411 teachers from 49 primary schools agreed to participate and com-pleted the questionnaire.

The number of teachers employed at the participating schools variedfrom 7 to 38 teachers, and each school educated between 70 and 650pupils, which is typical for the Dutch primary school context. The num-ber of teachers participating per school varied from 1 to 22. Of theteachers, 23.5% were male. The age of participants ranged from 21 to66 years, with an average age of 42.4 years. The average of teachers'working load was four days a week, while their teaching experiencevaried from less than 1 year to 42 years; 27% taught in the loweryears (kindergarten), 39% taught the middle years (grades 1–3), and34% taught the upper years (grades 4–6).

3.2. Instrumentation

A questionnaire consisting of three parts was constructed to mapteachers' collaboration aimed at different foci. Each part started with afocus of collaboration as context description, followed by a series ofquestions related to the described context. These series of questionsfor learning activities and learning outcomes were similar for thethree different foci of collaboration. Items formulated for the learning

activities were based on results of the previous interview study, eachwith more specific activities as subcategories; storytelling and scanning,aid and assistance, sharing, joint work and collegial support (see Table 1).A total of 22 learning activity items were developed (see Table 2). Con-crete point scales were constructed for the frequency of the undertakenlearning activities, consisting of the following categories: (1) never, (2)once a year, (3) twice a year (4) four times a year, (5)monthly, (6) twicea month and (7) weekly. To construct items for the perceived learningoutcomes, we also used the results of the previous interview studyand the described literature review. Nine items were formulated refer-ring to individual learning outcomes, collegial learning outcomes andshared learning outcomes (see Table 3). These items had to be scoredon a Likert-type five-point scale, ranging from (1) scarcely to (5) verymuch.

Experts and teachers were consulted to verify whether the foci ofcollaboration and the items included in the questionnaire were relevantand understandable. Onlyminor adjustments appeared to be necessary.However, the experts and the teachers had their doubts about the size ofthequestionnaire and advised to limit the size for participating teachers.It was decided that each teacher had to complete the questions for twofoci of collaboration. To ensure that in every school all foci were equallyresponded to, the foci were divided among the teachers in a school. Thismeant that every teacher had to respond to 75 items in total. Becauseeach of the 411 teachers had to complete questions for two foci, learningactivity and learning outcome itemswere completed two times; as a re-sult 822 cases could be identified in this study. Looking at the separatefoci, it appeared that 284 cases were available for ‘implementing newlesson materials’, 272 for ‘implementing a new teaching approach’ and266 for ‘teaching a particular group’.

Several analyses were conducted to check the reliability and validityof thequestionnaire. Exploratory factor analyses (PCA)with varimax ro-tationwere performed across all available data to checkwhether the as-sumed types of learning activities and learning outcomes were present.In these analyses, items were assigned to a component if they had acomponent loading of .40 at the minimum within the rotated solution.

The PCA on the learning activity items indicated that four compo-nents could be distinguished, each with an eigenvalue above 1.0.These components explained 71.4% of the total variance. The first com-ponent consisted of nine items representing the categories ‘storytellingand scanning’ and ‘aid and assistance’, as well as the learning activity‘exchange’ which was originally part of the category ‘sharing’. Allitems constituting this component were activities with low levelsof interdependency between teachers. Therefore, the component was la-belled exchange. The second component included seven items, all refer-ring to the category of ‘joint work’ and the separate learning activities‘organise’ and ‘discuss’. Since most items referred to joint work this com-ponent was labelled joint work. The third component consisted of twoitems, both part of the compound learning activity intervision, whichwas originally part of the category ‘joint work’. The fourth componentcomprised four items that belonged to the category collegial supportbetween two teachers. Table 2 presents the empirical scales for the learn-ing activities resulting from the factor analysis.

In the PCA for learning outcomes, three components for the differenttypes of learning outcomes could be distinguished. These three compo-nents had eigenvalues above 1.0 and explained 74.4% of the variance.The three components each consistedof three items, representing individ-ual, collegial and shared learning outcomes. Table 3 presents the empiricalscales for the learning outcomes.

To examine the reliability of the constructed scales across the threefoci, Cronbach's alpha was computed for each scale. The results inTable 2 show all learning activity scales to be reliable across the threefoci; alphas ranged from .74 to .95. In Table 3, the overall reliability ofthe learning outcome scales is displayed; alphas ranged from .79 to .84.

Next, correlations were computed between the scales for learningactivities and between learning outcomes to check whether the scalesmeasured distinctly different elements. Only a high correlation of .78

Table 2Learning activities: scales, Cronbach's alphas, number of items, number of cases and items for the questionnaire.

Scales Alphas Number of items Number of cases Items

Exchange .96 9 761 - I listen to information about the new approach.- I give colleagues information about the new approach.- I listen to experiences of colleagues with the new approach.- I tell about my experiences with the new approach.- I ask questions to my colleagues about the new approach.- A colleague asks questions to me about the new approach.- I receive tips from my colleagues about the way I can adopt the new approach.- I give colleagues tips about the way they can adopt the new approach.- My colleagues and I exchange our experiences with the new approach.

Joint work .90 7 731 - My colleagues and I decided together that a new approach of pupils must be implemented.- My colleagues and I discuss with each other the new approach.- My colleagues and I together study new approaches in-depth.- My colleagues and I develop a new approach by ourselves.- My colleagues and I organise the implementation of the new approach.- My colleagues and I evaluate if the new approach has achieved the desired effect.- My colleagues and I adjust the new approach based on the evaluation.

Intervision .95 2 774 - I introduce a problem experienced with the new approach during a moment of intervision- A colleague introduces a problem experienced with the new approach during a moment of intervision.

Collegial support .74 4 775 - I observe a colleague's lesson when he/she is adopting the new approach.- A colleague observes a lesson of mine when I am adopting the new approach.- I am coached by a colleague during the adoption of the new approach.- I am coaching a colleague during the adoption of the new approach.

Note: Here, items are displayed for the topic ‘implementation of a new teaching approach’. For the other two topics, the items were equivalent.

4 J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

was found within the learning activities between exchange and jointwork, suggesting some overlap between these two types of learningactivities. The remaining correlations for learning activities rangedbetween .24 and .36, suggesting a much smaller overlap.

Within the learning outcomes the correlation coefficients variedbetween .36 and .52. Thus, learning outcomes were at best moderatelycorrelated. Based on these results, it was decided to use four scales forlearning activities, and three scales for learning outcomes in subsequentanalyses.

3.3. Analyses

In accordance with the aim of this study and given the non-randomnature of the collected data, multilevel analyses of variance (usingMLNforWindows) were conducted. Analyses were conducted separately forthe three types of learning outcomes. Models were estimated using theRIGLS method of estimation, which takes into account the uneven

Table 3Learning outcomes: scales, Cronbach's alphas, number of items, number of cases and itemsfor the questionnaire.

Scales Alphas Numberof items

Numberof cases

Items

Individual .79 3 782 - My knowledge about the new teachingapproach has changed.

- My beliefs with regard to the newteaching approach have changed.

- I show different behaviour in my class.Collegial .80 3 781 - My knowledge aboutmy colleagues has

changed.- My beliefs with regard tomy colleagueshave changed.

- I show different behaviour in thecollaboration with my colleagues.

Shared .84 3 780 - My colleagues and I have receivedshared knowledge.

- My colleagues and I have receivedshared beliefs.

- My colleagues and I show similarbehaviour in our classes.

Note: Here, items are displayed for the topic ‘implementation of a new teaching approach’.For the other two topics, the items were equivalent.

distribution of teachers across schools. In the analyses, two levelswere distinguished, and five models were created. First, an emptymodel was created in order to determine the average scale score forthe learning outcome and to determine the amount of variance presentat the school and teacher level. Second, a model with learning activitieswas created to test the effect of the perceived frequency of occurrenceof learning activities on perceived learning outcomes. The third modeltested the effect of the focus of collaboration on learning outcomes. Forthis purpose, the focus of collaboration was transferred into a set oftwo dummy variables, with a score of zero representing ‘implementingnew lesson materials’ (the baseline), and a score of one representing‘implementing a new teaching approach’ and ‘teaching a particulargroup’, respectively. The fourth model tested the effect of the learningactivities and foci of collaboration jointly. The fifth model again testedthe joint effects of learning activities and foci of collaboration but now,also taking into account the effect of statistically significant covariates.To arrive at this final model, all available teacher background variableswere entered. In Table 4, the five models that were analysed for eachlearning outcome are depicted.

For each multilevel model, overall fit was determined by lookingat the model-to-data deviance (−2 loglikelihood). The differencesbetween themodels 1, 2, 4 and 5were tested by determining the differ-ences in loglikelihood compared to the differences in degrees of free-dom. For model 3, differences were tested comparing this model withmodel 1. For all significant variables, coefficients and standard errorswere estimated, as were effect sizes (cf. Snijders & Bosker, 1999). In ad-dition, the amount of total variance explained by the model as well asfor each separate level, was established.

4. Results

4.1. Individual learning outcomes

Table 5 presents the results of themultilevel analyses for the individ-ual learning outcomes. The empty model shows that almost 13% of thedifferences in individual learning outcomes were related to differencesbetween schools, and over 87% to differences between teachers withinschools.

The final model shows the relation of learning activities and foci ofcollaboration with individual learning outcomes, taking into accountthe overlapping effect of teacher background variables. The model

Table 4Models investigated for each of the learning outcomes in the multi-level analyses.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant

Exchange Exchange ExchangeJoint work Joint work Joint workIntervision Intervision IntervisionCollegialsupport

Collegial support Collegial support

A new teachingapproach

A new teachingapproach

A new teachingapproach

Teaching aparticular group

Teaching aparticular group

Teaching aparticular group

Gender (1 = male)Experience inteachingWorking load(1 = fulltime)Educational degree(1 = higher)Middle years(1 = kindergarten)Higher years(1 = kindergarten)

Note: constant = new lesson materials.

5J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

shows that the learning activities ‘joint work’ and ‘collegial support’werestatistically significantly positively related to individual learning out-comes. This means that the more often teachers reported to undertake‘jointwork’ and ‘collegial support’ activities, thehigher individual learningoutcomes were reported. Further, the model shows that for the focus ofcollaboration ‘teaching a particular group’ statistically significantly lowerindividual learning outcomes were reported by teachers compared tothe baseline (‘implementing new lesson materials’). The model showsno statistically significant difference between the foci of collaboration‘implementing a new teaching approach’ and the baseline.

The final model explained 21.1% of the total variance in individuallearning outcomes, including all variance at the school level. Most differ-ences between schools in individual learning outcomes were explainedby differences between foci of collaboration. This variable explained 68%of the variance at the school level (see model 3). The models in between

Table 5Results of multilevel analyses on individual learning outcomes.

Variables Model 1 Model 2

Estimates Estimates ES

Constant 3.281 (0.039) 2.980 (0.133)Activities Exchange n.s.

Joint work n.s.Intervision n.s.Collegial support 0.150 (0.032) .191

Foci A new teaching approachTeaching a particular group

Teacher GenderExperienceWorking loadEducational degreeMiddle yearsHigher years

Variances (%) Explained 0.0 3.9School 12.8 12.5Teacher 87.2 83.6

−2 ∗ loglikelihood 1902.235 1633.444Differences with df −268.791 with df = 4

Note: n.s. = not significant at p b .05.

show that the learning activities and foci of collaboration were related toeach other and strengthened each other.

4.2. Collegial learning outcomes

The results of the multilevel analyses for the collegial learning out-comes are presented in Table 6. The empty model shows that variancebetween schoolswas relatively small for the collegial learning outcomes(5.6%), suggesting that differences in collegial learning outcomes weremainly related to differences between teachers (94.4%) within schools.

The final model shows a similar pattern for learning activities com-pared to that found for the individual learning outcomes. The learningactivities ‘joint work’ and ‘collegial support’ were positively related tocollegial learning. However, the effect of foci of collaboration in thefinal model was not statistically significant.

In total, the final model explained 16.5% of the variance in collegiallearning outcomes, which corresponded to 32% of the variance at theschool level and 16% of the variance at the teacher level. Comparingthe explained variance of the models two, three and four, it could beconcluded that learning activities explained most of the variance in col-legial learning outcomes, namely 10.6% (model 2).

4.3. Shared learning outcomes

In Table 7, the results of themultilevel analyses for the shared learningoutcomes are presented. The emptymodel showed that for this perceivedlearning outcomealmost all differenceswere related to teachers, as 97%ofthe total variance was present at the teacher level. Thus, differences be-tween schools were very small for shared learning outcomes (3%).

The finalmodel showed a different pattern for learning activities com-pared to the other types of learning outcomes. The learning activities ‘ex-change’ and ‘joint work’ were both statistically significant and positivelyrelated to shared learning outcomes. In other words, the more oftenthese learning activities were perceived, the more shared learning out-comes were perceived as well. Similar to the individual learning out-comes, statistically significantly lower shared learning outcomes werereported for the focus ‘teaching a particular group’ compared to the base-line, representing the focus ‘implementing new lesson materials’.

Thefinalmodel explained 15.6% of the total variance in shared learn-ing outcomes, all related to differenceswithin schools and thus betweenteachers. Again, the models in between suggest that learning activities

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Estimates ES Estimates ES Estimates ES

3.328 (0.054) 2.600 (0.128) 2.576 (0.190)0.073 (0.034) .127 n.s.0.089 (0.034) .164 0.075 (0.037) .138n.s. n.s.0.134 (0.030) .170 0.150 (0.033) .191

0.231 (0.077) .131 n.s. n.s.−0.388 (0.078) − .221 −0.856 (0.108) − .487 −0.827 (0.111) − .471

n.s.−0.006 (0.003) − .085−0.194 (0.072) − .055n.s.n.s.n.s.

8.9 17.4 21.14.1 2.8 0.087.0 79.9 79.9

1848.799 1547.954 1270.827−53.436 with df = 2 −85.490 with df = 2 −277.127 with df = 6

Table 6Results of multilevel analyses on collegial learning outcomes.

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Estimates Estimates ES Estimates ES Estimates ES Estimates ES

Constant 2.808 (0.036) 2.064 (0.130) 2.615 (0.058) 1.887 (0.138) 2.105 (0.206)Activities Exchange n.s. n.s. n.s.

Joint work 0.104 (0.034) .183 0.131 (0.037) .231 0.129 (0.040) .228intervision n.s. n.s. n.s.Collegial support 0.183 (0.033) .222 0.175 (0.032) .213 0.190 (0.035) .231

Foci A new teaching approach 0.332 (0.083) .180 n.s. n.s.Teaching a particular group 0.251 (0.084) .136 −0.241 (0.118) − .131 n.s.

Teacher Gender 0.236 (0.095) .115Experience n.s.Working load −0.168 (0.077) − .046Educational degree n.s.Middle years −0.194 (0.088) − .107Higher years n.s.

Variances (%) Explained 0.0 10.6 2.2 12.0 16.5School 5.6 4.8 4.0 3.8 3.8Teacher 94.4 84.6 93.8 84.2 79.7

−2 ∗ loglikelihood 1988.604 1662.660 1971.552 1651.071 1341.998Differences with df −325.944 with

df = 4−17.052 withdf = 2

−11.589 withdf = 2

−309.073 withdf = 6

Note: n.s. = not significant at p b .05.

6 J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

and foci of collaboration strengthened each other in their effect onshared learning outcomes.

5. Conclusion and discussion

The aim of this study was to get a better understanding of teachers'perceived learning outcomes in relation to collaborative learning activ-ities and foci of collaboration, taking into account differences betweenschools.

Overall, it can be concluded that the frequency with which teachersperceived collaborative learning activities was positively associated withthe perceived learning outcomes. This conclusion confirms that teacherswho collaboratemore oftenwith each other, createmore powerful learn-ing opportunities (e.g., Little, 1990; McLaughin & Talbert, 2006).

More specifically, it can be concluded that ‘jointwork’ activitieswererelated to all types of learning outcomes. This finding is in line with theliterature that argues that ‘joint work’ activities suppose a high level ofinterdependency between teachers and therefore should lead to more

Table 7Results of multilevel analyses on shared learning outcomes.

Variables Model 1 Model 2

Estimates Estimates ES

Constant 3.454 (0.030) 2.683 (0.119)Activities Exchange 0.066 (0.032) .122

Joint work 0.062 (0.031) .122Intervision n.s.Collegial support 0.060 (0.030) .082

Foci A new teaching approachTeaching a particular group

Teacher GenderExperienceWorking loadEducational degreeMiddle yearsHigher years

Variances (%) Explained 0.0 8.3School 3.0 3.0Teacher 97.0 88.7

−2 ∗ loglikelihood 1814.704 1535.003Differences with df −279.701 with

df = 4

Note: n.s. = not significant at p b .05.

learning outcomes compared to other activities (Little, 1990). Besidesthe learning activity ‘joint work’, the learning activity ‘exchange’ wasrelated to shared learning outcomes as well. The finding confirms thatlearning activities referring to low (exchange) and high (joint work)levels of interdependency are both important for learning (Shank,2006). Nevertheless, the findings show that this is especially true forshared learning outcomes.

In addition, next to the learning activity ‘joint work’, the learningactivity ‘collegial support’ was related to both individual and collegiallearning outcomes. This finding underlines that in Dutch primaryschools collegial support activities are often unidirectional and refer toone teacher helping another colleague.

A second conclusion is that while not always statistically significant,roughly it seemed that ‘implementing a new teaching approach’was thefocus with the highest perceived learning outcomes, whereas ‘teachinga particular group’ was the focus with the lowest perceived learningoutcomes. Inmost studies, teacher learning has been investigated with-in one specific focus of collaboration and because of that, results of the

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Estimates ES Estimates ES Estimates ES

3.410 (0.051) 2.466 (0.125) 2.598 (0.187)0.116 (0.033) .215 0.130 (0.035) .2410.129 (0.034) .255 0.102 (0.036) .201n.s. n.s.n.s. n.s.

n.s. n.s. n.s.n.s. −0.556 (0.106) − .338 −0.535 (0.115) − .325

n.s.n.s.−0.227 (0.070) − .142n.s.n.s.n.s.

0.0 10.6 15.63.0 3.0 3.097.0 86.4 81.4

1813.606 1506.413 1236.524−1.098 withdf = 2

−28.59 withdf = 2

−269.889 withdf = 6

7J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

present study are difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, the results are inaccordance with the expectation formulated earlier, suggesting that afocus involvingmore teachers and beingmore formal in nature is likelyto evoke more learning than foci that are not. In addition, the presentstudy did show that it is possible to compare learning activities and learn-ing outcomes across different foci of collaboration and that, depending ofthe focus of collaboration, differences in learning outcomes are perceivedby teachers.

Furthermore, it can be concluded that teachers' perceived learningoutcomes are related to the frequency with which they perceivedcollaborative learning activities to occur and the foci of collaboration.Collaborative learning activities and foci of collaboration both had aunique as well as a joint effect on learning outcomes. These findingsthus confirm the relationship between foci and learning activities, aswell as their influence on teachers' learning (e.g., Putnam & Borko,2000).

Finally, it can be concluded that teachers' perceived learning out-comes were greatly dependent on individual teachers, regardless ofthe school with which they were affiliated. The conclusion is, in linewith the literature, that individual teachers can learn different thingswhen they participate in the same learning activities (Hindin et al.,2007; Little, 2002). Although schools did not seem to have a large influ-ence on teachers' perceived learning outcomes, they still influenced thefrequency with which teachers perceived collaborative learning activi-ties, aswell as the foci of collaboration, suggesting that schools influencelearning outcomes in an indirect way. Future research seems necessaryin order to investigate this relation between schools and learning out-comes more in detail.

5.1. Limitations

The first aspect that limited our conclusions is the questionnaire in-strument used in this study. First, teachers reported small differencesbetween the different types of learning outcomes and as a result thequestion arises as to whether or not perceptions of teachers are thebest way to measure learning outcomes. Teachers do not seem tobe very conscious of learning outcomes, which can be explained bythe fact that learning often takes place incidentally (van Eekelen,Vermunt, & Boshuizen, 2006). In addition, teachers are not accustomedto think about learning from an analytical perspective (Doppenberg,Bakx, et al., 2012; Berings, Doornbos, & Simons, 2006). Second, theamount of items measuring the learning outcomes was quite small.Third, the questionnaire developed in this study consisted of scalesthat appeared reliable and only partially overlapped. Nevertheless, thescales exchange and joint work correlated to some degree, suggestingthat items of these scales might not have been distinctive enough forteachers. Moreover, the learning activities weremeasured by frequencyof occurrence. While important, the performed quality of these learningactivities in relation to learning outcomes might also be important. Thelast aspect regarding the instrument refers to the foci of collaborationdistinguished. While the findings showed differences between the fociof collaboration in relation to learning outcomes, thesemight not be dis-tinctive enough as only between two of the three foci differences werefound in learning outcomes. In sum, the instrument was useful to ex-plore relationships between learning outcomes, collaborative learningactivities and foci of collaboration, but further improvement and elabo-ration of some of its parts are both possible and desirable.

In addition, as the conclusionswere based on teachers' perceptions, infuture research more detailed investigations can be realised, for exampleby observing teacher collaboration in practice. Analysing observed learn-ing activities and learning outcomes as well as foci of collaboration canprovide a more detailed understanding. The collaborative learning activi-ties investigated in this study can be characterised as observable activitiesand are related to the learning outcomes. Nevertheless, what teachers ac-tually do andwhat is learnedmight also be influencedby teachers'mentalactivities during the collaboration (Bakkenes et al., 2010; Vermunt &

Endedijk, 2011). Therefore, in future research on collaborative learning,it can be useful to investigate learning processes more in-depth by takinginto accountmental activities next to teachers' observable activities in re-lation to learning outcomes.

5.2. Implications

Themost important implication of this study is that the frequency ofoccurrence of learning activities as well as the foci of collaboration arerelated to learning outcomes. As these relationships were relativelyunexplored in the literature on collaborative learning, the implicationsuggests that to understand learning outcomes, researchers as well aspractitioners should take into account collaborative learning activitiesand foci of collaboration. Moreover, a previous study showed that thesetting within which teacher collaboration occurs influences teachers'learning as well (Doppenberg, Bakx, et al., 2012). Therefore, we suggestthat taking into account the complex and multiple relationships be-tween learning outcomes, learning activities, foci of collaboration aswell as collaborative settings, might lead to a deeper understanding ofcollaborative learning of teachers.

Lastly, the instrument developed in this study can be used by primaryschools to measure the degree to which collaborative learning occurswithin their context and within different foci of collaboration in theirschools. Using the instrumentmayhelp schools to understandwhich con-texts can be optimised to stimulate teacher learning. Therefore, it seemsinteresting to understand what kind of learning activities and learningoutcomes are likely to occur in teacher collaborations that differ in foci,and to support and create learning opportunities that lead to intendedresults. The instrument can thus give schools information about whatactivities are lacking or weak in the implementation of innovations or inprocesses set up to improve the school. Finally, the instrument can beused to evaluate the efficiency of teachers' time spent on collaboration.

References

Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J.D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context ofeducational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experiencedteachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533–548.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—Or might be—The role ofcurriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? EducationalResearcher, 25(9), 6–8 (+14).

Berings, M. G. M. C., Doornbos, A. J., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). Methodological practices inon-the-job learning research. Human Resource Development International, 9(3),333–363.

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., &Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustainingeffective professional learning communities: University of Bristol, Research report RR637.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professionaldevelopment. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & M.B. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia ofEducation, Vol. 7. (pp. 548–556)Oxford: Elsevier.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate readingpolicy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,2001, 23(2), 145–170.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

Doppenberg, J. J., Bakx, A. W. E. A., & den Brok, P. J. (2012). Collaborative teacher learningin different primary school settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(5),547–566.

Doppenberg, J. J., den Brok, P. J., & Bakx, A. W. E. A. (2012). Collaborative teacher learningacross foci of collaboration: Perceived activities and outcomes. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 28(6), 899–910.

Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M.,McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L.Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world(pp. 358–389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Henze, I. (2006). Science teachers' knowledge development in the context of innovation.doctoral dissertation. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.

Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., Mott, E. A., & Aguilar, C. M. (2007). More than just a group:Teacher collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching, 13(4),349–376.

Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experiencedteachers' informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions.Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 276–298.

Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning in schools. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 293–311.

8 J.J. Doppenberg et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 28 (2013) 1–8

James, C. R., Dunning, G., Connolly, M., & Elliott, T. (2007). Collaborative practice: A modelof successful working in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5),541–555.

Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers' participation in professional learningactivities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.

Levine, T. H., &Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers' collaborativeactivities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,389–398.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers'professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: opening upproblems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education,18(8), 917–946.

McLaughin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learningcommunities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York:Teachers College Press.

Meirink, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and collabo-ration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161–181.

Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers' individual learningin collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 145–164.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companiescreate the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Orland-Barak, L., & Tillema, H. (2006). The ‘dark side of the moon’: A critical look at teacherknowledge construction in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching, 12, 1–12.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have tosay about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (pp. 905–947). Washington: DC: American EducationalResearch Association.

Shank, M. J. (2006). Teacher storytelling: A means for creating and learning within acollaborative space. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 711–721.

Simons, P. R. J., & Ruijters, M. P. C. (2001). Work-related learning: Elaborate, extend, andexternalise. In W. J. Nijhof, & L. F. M. Nieuwenhuis (Eds.), The dynamics of VET andHRD systems (pp. 101–114). : Enschede Twente University Press.

Snijders, T. A.B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic andadvanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publishers.

Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research,72(3), 387.

STAMOS (2009). Internationaal: leraren naar aanstellingsomvang in primair onderwijs[International: primary school teachers' full time equivalent]. Data file. http://www.stamos.nl/index.bms?verb=showitem&item=2.63.3 (Accessed 13 January 2012.)

Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, detail anddifficulties. Berkshire: ENG: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.

van Eekelen, I. M., Vermunt, J.D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2006). Exploring teachers' will tolearn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 408–423.

Vermunt, J.D., & Endedijk, M.D. (2011). Patterns in teacher learning in different phases ofthe professional career. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 294–302.

Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the sharedenterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, &K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questionsin changing contexts (pp. 756–783) (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.