01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Who Are We As Partners? Interpretations Of The Role of Representatives From Higher Education in a Decentralized Competence Development Project
Anne-Grete Kaldahl, Ingrid Helleve, Martin Meggele Sjøen
University of Bergen, Norway
Presenting Author: Kaldahl, Anne-Grete;
Helleve, Ingrid
The aim of our study is to get a deeper understanding of the role of partners as representatives from higher education in a decentralized competence development project.
In Norway, teachers are expected to acquire research-based skills and to have access to continued development within a professional learning community to make informed decisions in their day-to-day work (Ministry of Education, 2018). Recently, a new model for professional development was introduced by the national authorities. The model is called Decentralized Competence Development (Desentralisert Kompetanseutvikling, DEKOM-S). Schools are encouraged to apply for grants to support projects which intentionally develop teachers’ competencies. DEKOM-S is envisioned as a partnership between the county’s school administration, higher education and the applying school. The appointed schools are organized in small groups of 3-4 that are supposed to collaborate. DEKOM-S is initiated by the Government and run by the administration in each county. The schools apply for grants and are selected for participation by the representatives from the county’s administration and higher education.
According to Whitepaper 21 (2016-2017), the new model marks a change in the national authorities strategic thinking of competence development in schools. The initiative is grounded in acknowledging national competence development initiatives, which currently lack sufficiently anchoring in the local school context. Additionally, little attention has been paid to the fact that implementation takes time and finally that national initiatives has so far not led to real and lasting changes in the ways local authorities, schools and teachers work (Whitepaper, 21 (2016-2017): 89-90). The policy-document is in line with research on competence development (Guskey, 2002; Timperley, Barrar & Fung, 2007; Cordingley, 2015).
During six years from 2019, DEKOM-S is supposed to be evaluated by a research group from Oslo Met (Lyng, Fossestøl, & Borg (2022) (2019-2025). Already, the group has identified some challenges. First, that the partnership does not work by its intention when it comes to equality among the three partners: county administration, schools, and higher education. Another problem is lack of local ownership and involvement from the schools. The third challenge mentioned is connected to participation from higher education. There seems to be a great variation in the ways higher education offer support to the schools, and this is the background for the current study.
As three teacher educators we were asked by the administrator in higher education if we could “follow up” the four upper secondary schools in our local district. There were few guidelines either from the representatives from the local authorities, or from the administration in higher education. In addition, the four schools were selected from some criteria decided by the county’s administration that we as representatives from higher education did not have access to. Some fixed arrangements as one common meeting for all the schools, and six digital meetings with each school during the year were announced. As representatives from higher education, we were confused. The three partners were supposed to be present, but how the meetings were supposed to be arranged was unclear. Uncertainty was present regarding questions like: what were the criteria for selection of schools, what were the roles the different partners, who were going to lead the meetings, and what was the outcome supposed to be? As a result, we were left with an unclear work assignment.
On this background, we, as a group, decided to do action research on the role as a representative from higher education into the partnership. Our research question is: What expectations do we and other representatives from higher education, schools, and the county’s administration have to the role of higher education in the partnership?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSince we have the role as representatives from higher education, and simultaneously are doing research on the same role, we decided to define the study as action research. Action research as a methodological approach is characterized by action and research. It is an action because the researchers are acting inside the system they are trying to improve and understand, and research because a systematic, critical investigation is published (Feldman, 2007). Action research makes it possible to systematically learn from experiences (Winter, 1998). The approach is based on a personal wish to gain a deeper understanding of one’s own practice based on systematically gathered information, carried out in dialogue with others. (Ponte, Beijard, & Ax, 2004).
During the autumn semester 2022 we decided to create a peer-mentoring group (Heikkinen, Jokinen, & Tynjäläla, 2008) in order to support and challenge each other in the rather vague role as partners. From our meetings with the schools, we agreed to write field-notes. In order to strengthen our primary research methods, we plan during the spring semester to collect data from the schools, the county’s administration team, the administrative representative from higher education, and the four schools to answer our research question through a qualitative online survey. Since the stakeholders participate by writing their own responses to open-ended questions, developed by us as researchers, we seek to collect rich and subjective responses in the participants own words to extend the reach of our primary data (Braun et al., 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur preliminary findings from our field-notes and peer-group discussions tell us that the schools’ backgrounds are different and consequently our role differs. For instance, in one school, the initiative for participation comes from the staff and all the teachers agree to participate, while in another school the leadership was responsible for the initiative, and some teachers do not even know each other. The partner schools are at different stages in their respective projects. This impacts their needs from us as representatives from higher education. Consequently, our next step in this ongoing action research is to investigate our partners’ expectations to our partnership as representatives from higher education.
Our preliminary findings have important implications for understanding the partnership role as representatives from higher education in a decentralized competence development project. Firstly, successful partnership between schools, the administrative level and higher education, is contingent on all actors being part of the project from the start. This can for example involve being part of the process of evaluating the applications from schools and selecting doable developmental projects within the time frame. Secondly, the different roles and functions of the actors should be made explicit from the onset, which would allow for a clearer division of responsibility between stakeholders. The role of systemizing knowledge is not clarified in the project. We would contend that a more precisely defined role of researchers would allow for a more systematic approach to accumulating data. Thirdly, our role was strengthen by working together as a team, since our undefined roles and tasks required support from each other . Fourthly, this kind of work requires a line of open communication at all levels, with room for trial and error, and all voices to be heard and incorporated in the work community as a holistic pedagogy of communication and cooperation.
ReferencesBraun, V. C., Boulton E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24:6, 641-654, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development, Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 234–252.
Feldman, (2007). Teachers, responsibility and action research. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 239-252.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.
Heikkinen, H. L. T., Jokinen, H., & Tynjäläla, P. (2008). Reconceptualising mentoring as dialogue. In G. Fransson, & C. Gustafsson (Eds.), Newly qualified teachers in Northern Europe (pp. 107–124). Gävle: University of Gävle.
Lyng, S.T., Fossestøl,K. & Borg, E. (2022). New infrastructure for local competence development- three important challenges (In Norwegian: Ny infrastruktur for lokal kompetanseutvikling − tre viktige utfordringer). Bedre skole.
Ministry of Education (2018). Teacher Education 2025 National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. 04/2018. Published by: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research
Ponte, P., D. Beijard, and J. Ax. (2004). “Don’t Wait Till the Cows Come Home: Action
Research and Initial Teacher Education in Three Different Countries.” Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice 10 (6): 591–621.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES), International Academy vi-220.
Winter, R. (1998). “Finding a Voice – Thinking with Others: A Conception of Action
Research.” Educational Action Research 6 (1): 53–68.
Whitepaper, 21 (2016-2017). (Eager to learn- early Lærelsyt – tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-21-20162017/id2544344/
https://www.udir.no/contentassets/9df2a26d560c47e1b1159622330e69ca/evakomp_temanotat_1.pdf
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
The Impact of International Mobility Programmes for Professionals: A Systematic Literature Review 1960-2022
Natalya Hanley, Lorena Sanchez Tyson, Joonghyun Kwak, Ilka Vari-Lavoisier, Zhe Wang, Maia Chankseliani
University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Hanley, Natalya;
Sanchez Tyson, Lorena
Mobility is one of the characteristics of globalisation, which has grown rapidly over the last two decades. The term mobility is widely seen in relation to International Student Mobility as someone who crosses national borders for the purpose of studying and work experience (Knight 2012), which can be equally applied to students and professionals.
A significant number of the studies on professionals mobility (PM) programmes focus on short- and long-term activities for professionals such as academics, researchers, and teachers (Engel 2010; Kuzhabekova, Hendel, and Chapman 2015; Lawson and Shibayama 2015; Leung 2013; Ospina and Medina 2020a; Teichler 2017). Fewer researches focus on community leaders (Pate et al. 2020), leaders from different types of development organisations (Pless et al., 2011), and political leaders (Scott-Smith 2008). The activities usually include professional programs (Kuzhabekova et al., 2022), international visits (Lawson and Shibayama, 2015), exchange programs and early-career training (Bridgwood et al. 2017), and participation in the international academic experience, including teaching and research (Ospina, 2020).
The bulk of the existing research studies examine the benefits the PM programmes bring to the participants’ experience abroad and professional development, e.g. the accumulation of research/teaching skills, cross-cultural competencies, knowledge sharing, networking and collaboration (Cañibano, Otamendi, and Solís 2011; Ospina and Medina 2020b; Teichler 2017). However, a few studies discuss the contribution the participants might bring back to their home countries. In his book, Network of Empire: The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France, and Britain, Scott-Smith (2008) investigates the history of the leadership exchange program, the role of the program in transatlantic relationships between the1950-70s, and how it impacted political leaders’ careers. He argued that the programme contributed to the participants’ experience and played an essential role in public diplomacy, creating connections between political and military leaders at that time.
Looking at the impact of exchange programs like the Ford Foundation International Fellowship Program and Humphrey Fellowship Program (DCG 2021), the relevantly recent papers discuss how the PM programmes contribute to the professional development (skills and knowledge) of the participants. Additionally, the programmes could potentially generate community- and societal change at the institutional and possibly national levels (Kallick and Murga 2018; Martel 2019; Murga and Martel 2017). Similarly, the study on the Humphrey Fellowship exchange program focused on its long-term impact highlighting the fellows’ contributions at the institutional, national and international levels. It included the introduction of new best practices and innovative methods within different organisations as well as national policies, public policies and national programs (U.S. Department of State 2018).
In this context, this paper systematically reviews the existing literature, including scope and scale, on international mobility programmes for professionals to trace the individual and broader societal impact of such programmes. The systematic review addresses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What is professional mobility?
Research Question 2: What is the impact of international mobility programmes for professionals on the participants of such programmes?
Research Question 3: What contribution do the participants of these programmes make after they return home at organisational, community and national levels?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedGuided by the research questions, the scope of the systematic literature review was the following. Firstly, our process included only academic articles and reviews (referred to as ‘articles’ in this study) published in peer-reviewed journals from 1960 to 2022. The research was conducted by title, abstract and keywords at the most comprehensive database – Scopus. With identified strings including some of the following words and phrases: “international”, “transnational”, “global”, “overseas”, “foreign” “abroad“, “cross-border”, “cross-national”, “transnational”, “intra”, “academic”, “visit”, “artist”, “leader”, “official”, “sport”, ”business”, “journalist”, “civil society”, “politic”, “exchange program*”, “professional development program”, “internship program”, “workshop program”, “work placement program”, “impact”, “change”, “transform”, “effect”, “develop”, “outcome”, “improv”, “influence”, “grow”, the research ran three circles of research. The total 5581 articles were moved to the Covidence, 2284 duplicates were removed automatically, 3297 articles were screened, and after removing irrelevant publications, 100 were ready for the full-text study assessment.
Secondly, the following criteria have been used to ascertain the eligible articles: relevance, appropriateness, validity/credibility, reliability and objectivity. Relevance helped identify if the articles were related to the main research question, which focused on the contribution of professional mobility programmes at the professional, organisational, community and national levels after the participants return home. Research design and analysis were related to appropriateness. The research rigour was assessed through the essential criteria of validity, reliability and objectivity.
Finally, to reflect the rigour of the publication, the table with all the article information, including a description of each article, context, the definition of professional mobility, methodology, etc., was created. The thematic literature analysis is used to address the research question.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe systematic literature review offers a comprehensive view of international professional mobility programmes, providing the key themes, scale and scope of the studies included in this research. The study discusses the conceptualisation of short- and long- term international mobility for professionals and how it influences the participants’ professional development. A wide range of benefits are discussed within the development of the professional features, including teaching and research skills, development of the useful networks, cultural awareness, flexibility, tolerance and respect. Additionally, the study sheds light on the links between the international professional mobility and the impact which goes beyond individual benefits. For example, contributions the participants bring to the organisations, communities and the broader society.
ReferencesBridgwood, B., H.Willoughby, M.Attridge, and E.Tang. 2017. ‘The Value of European Exchange Programs for Early Career Family Doctors’. Education for Primary Care 28(4):232–36. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2017.1315618.
Cañibano, Carolina, F. Javier Otamendi, and Francisco Solís. 2011. ‘International Temporary Mobility of Researchers: A Cross-Discipline Study’. Scientometrics 89(2):653. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0462-2.
DCG. 2021. System-Level Impact of Cultural and Educational Exchange Programs: Literature Review and In-Depth Interviews. Version 2.
Engel, Constanze. 2010. ‘The Impact of Erasmus Mobility on the Professional Career: Empirical Results of International Studies on Temporary Student and Teaching Staff Mobility’. Belgeo. Revue Belge de Géographie (4):351–63.
Kallick, Judith, and Andrea Brown Murga. 2018. Transformational Leaders and Social Change: IFP Impacts in Africa and the Middle East. 4. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Knight, J. 2012. ‘Student Mobility and Internationalisation: Trends and Tribulations’. Https://Www.ReseResearch in Comparative and International Education 7(4):20–33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.1.20.
Kuzhabekova, Aliya, Darwin D. Hendel, and David W. Chapman. 2015. ‘Mapping Global Research on International Higher Education’. Research in Higher Education 56(8):861–82.
Lawson, C., and S. Shibayama. 2015. ‘International Research Visits and Careers: An Analysis of Bioscience Academics in Japan’. Science and Public Policy 42(5):690–710. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scu084.
Leung, M. W. H. 2013. ‘Unraveling the Skilled Mobility for Sustainable Development Mantra: An Analysis of China-EU Academic Mobility’. Sustainability (Switzerland) 5(6):2644–63. doi: 10.3390/su5062644.
Martel, Mirka. 2019. Leveraging Higher Education to Promote Social Justice: Evidence from the IFP Alumni Tracking Study. 5. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Murga, Andrea Brown, and Mirka Martel. 2017. Leaders, Contexts, and Complexities: IFP Impacts in Latin America. 3. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Ospina, Nelly Sierra, and Sergio Lopera Medina. 2020. ‘Living and Teaching Internationally: Teachers Talk about Personal Experiences, Benefits, and Challenges’. Journal of Research in International Education 19(1):38–53. doi: 10.1177/1475240920915013.
Pate, Joshua, Travis Scheadler, Carolyn Spellings, Alicia Malnati, and Sarah Hillyer. 2020. ‘Sport as a Tool for Community Leaders of People with Disabilities: Exploring an Innovative, Immersive Exchange Training Program’. Managing Sport and Leisure 25(3):146–60.
Pless, Nicola M., Thomas Maak, and Guenter K. Stahl. 2011. ‘Developing Responsible Global Leaders Through International Service-Learning Programs: The Ulysses Experience’. Academy of Management Learning & Education 10(2):237–60. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2011.62798932.
Scott-Smith, Giles. 2008. Networks of Empire: The US State Department’s Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France, and Britain 1950-70. Brussels: Belgium: P.I.E. Peter Lang.
U.S. Department of State. 2018. Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program Evaluation Report. Evaluation Report. Rockville, MD: General Dynamics Information Technology.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Professional Development for Educators in Higher Education: A New Organisational Initiative
Birgitte Lund Nielsen, Henriette Duch
VIA University College, Denmark
Presenting Author: Duch, Henriette
In 2022 the implementation of a new educational academy started at a large University College. The aim from the directive level is that this organizational unit shall lead and host professional development activities for all educators at the college covering campuses in seven cities offering professional bachelor programs for example in the fields of nursing, teacher education, business administration, engineering and computer graphics, and with around 2000 employees and 40.000 students. Hence, the strategic aim is to strengthen and systematize professional development by tightening together the until now decentral activities for associate professors and to innovate an existing mandatory program about teaching skills for assistant professors.
Professional development for educators in higher education is a field with a growing awareness internationally (Irby & O´Sullivan 2017; Swennen & White, 2021; Vanderlinde et al., 2021). A great deal is known about general criteria for teacher professional development including the importance of content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation (Desimone, 2009). Furthermore, there is research addressing professional development for specific groups like teacher educators (MacPhail et al., 2018; Vanderlinde et al., 2021). MacPhail et al. (2018) emphasize the complex role as teacher educator compared with the typical minimal preparation and possibility for professional development pointing to the importance of the educators experiencing professional development through peer collaboration and to the inextricable link between teaching and research and, consequently, the need for educators to upskill in research skills. The issue about research skills is also highlighted referring to educators in medical education (Irby & O´Sullivan, 2017). Furthermore, some studies discuss the extended need for flexibility for the educators in higher education (Wynants & Dennis, 2018).
Starting from this research-based knowledge about professional development for educators could be one approach to analyze the implementation of the educational academy. Another approach would be to analyze the initiative as an organizational innovation with a range of stakeholders. The argument here is that a combined approach with both perspectives can help understand the possibilities, challenges, and tensions in such a complex large-scale initiative, contributing also with generic knowledge about how to organize professional development for educators at a higher education institution. Theoretically we refer to social learning theory and practice theory emphasizing the dialectic and dynamic relationship between social structure and human agency and focusing on the complex system of communities of practices and boundaries between them (Schatzki, 2006; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2015; Wilkinson & Kemmis, 2015). McGrath (2020) concludes based on research looking into academic development that structures and strategies at the organizational level are determent for the educators professional development highlighting potential challenges related to the culture of change within an organization, for example: structural challenges, perceived lack of opportunities to implement ideas, inability to mobilize theory into practice, lack of mandate, and different understanding of key concepts (McGrath, 2020, p. 102). Summing up, the research aim is to examine opportunities and challenges concerning the new educational academy as an organizational frame forprofessional development for the educators at the University College, both novice assistant professors and more experienced associate professors. The first phase of the research addresses the implementation starting before educational activities. The research question in this phase is: Which interests do various stakeholders express concerning the educational academy and what possibilities, challenges and tensions are identified by the stakeholders? The findings from this first phase are shortly presented below. In the next phase starting spring 2023 multiple cases of educational activities are examined with the following research question: How do the educators involved experience to be supported professionally? Finding from these case-studies will be included in the presentation at the conference.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research is designed as a sequential mixed method exploratory study (Cresswell & Clark, 2017) following two main phases. The data collection in first phase includes multiple qualitative data, e.g. documents formulated at the directive level, notes and presentations made by a the leader of the academy and focus group interviews exploring the various stakeholder interests and patterns of decision making during the initiation of the educational academy. In the subsequent phase of research the analyses of these first qualitative data inform the design of an online questionnaire for educators participating in various educational activities organized in the educational academy. The questionnaire includes both closed items and open-ended questions following the methodology of qualitative surveys (Braun et.al., 2021). Data collection in phase 2 will furthermore include concurrent qualitative data from the context of multiple case-studies (Yin, 2018). Cases are sampled with both bright new types of educational activities, for example related to learning communities and the SoTL approach as described in the steering documents, and educational activities in the redesigned and innovated program for assistant professors.
The qualitative data-generation in phase 1 started with a semi-structured interview performed September 2022 with the leader of the educational academy and analysis of the various steering documents and the process of developing these across autumn 2022. Subsequently various groups of stakeholders in the initiative were identified (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997), and three semi-structured focus group interviews were performed December 2022 with leaders and educators sampled to represent variation across fields of responsibility in the organisation, attachment to the various professional bachelor programs mentioned in the introduction and geographic variation across campuses. The three focus groups included respectively leaders at lower levels in the organisation, educators without leading responsibilities and other stakeholders. The same interview guide was used in the three online focus group interviews addressing: 1) Their knowledge about and anticipations for the educational academy, 2) How their present work assignments might be affected, and 3) Their perspectives on the theme of professional development for educators in higher education in general and at the university college in particular.
The data was analysed by reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2018), with two researchers analysing first each interview and them formulating themes covering possibilities, challenges and tensions across interviews.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe initiative of the educational academy came as a surprise for stakeholders beyond the top direction. It wasn’t discussed with neither leaders at lower levels nor educators before the advertisement for a leader primo 2022. The new leader initiated a range of stakeholder meetings until autumn 2022 where the steering documents were presented to and subsequently adopted by the direction. In the interview during these processes the leader in the rationale for the approach to the upcoming activities refers to both international research and own initial inquiries. A design thinking approach is applied, and an overall organization of the educational activities with learning communities and scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is described in the steering documents. Furthermore, the strategic aim of micro-credentials for educators is highlighted. Both leaders and educators in the focus groups welcome the educational academy pointing to the need for professional development in particular for associate professors where the possibilities like emphasized by MacPhail et al. (2018) until now have been scarce. There are however some tensions concerning the existing program for assistant professors being phased out, and boundaries between the academy and previous responsibilities for educational development. Furthermore, concerns in relation to description of structures (like e.g. SoTL) coming before discussion of content are raised, and tensions due to the large variation across educations are foreseen highlighting a subtle balance between generic themes and approaches in educational activities targeting all educators and specific support due to needs in the very different educational cultures. The analyses point to the central issue of the mandate (McGrath, 2020) and legitimacy for the new leader in this complex initiative with many different stakeholder interests and anticipations. Analyses of the first educational activities are addressing the meaning-making and possibilities for professional learning for different types of educators and educational cultures.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong, P. (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (s. 1-18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_103-1
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
Cresswell, J.W. & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd Revised edition). Sage Publications.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Towards better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X0833114
Irby, D. M. & O´Sullivan, P. S. (2017). Developing and rewaring teachers as educators and scholars: remarkable progress and dauting challenges. Medical Education 52, 58–67. https://doi.org//10.1111/medu.13379
Lillejord, S., Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Ruud, E. (2018). Learning and teaching with technology in Higher Education – a systematic review. Knowledge Centre for Education.
MacPhail, A., Ulvik, M., Guberman, A., Czerniawski, G., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., & Bain, Y. (2019) The professional development of higher education- based teacher educators: needs and realities. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 848-861. https://doi.org//10.1080/19415257.2018.1529610
McGrath, C. (2020) Academic developers as brokers of change: insights from a research project on change practice and agency, International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1665524
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.
Schatzki, T. (2006). On organizations as they happen. Organization Studies, 27, 1863–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084060607194
Swennen, A. & White, E. (2021). Being a teacher educator. Routledge.
Vanderlinde, R., Smith, K., Murray, J. & Lunenberg, M. (2021). Teacher educators and their professional development. Routledge.
Wenger-Trayner, E. et al. (2015). Learning in landscapes of practice. Routledge
Wilkinson, J. & Kemmis, S. (2015). Practice Theory: Viewing leadership as leading. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(4), 342-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.976928
Wisdom, J. (2012). International trends and strategies in educational development at universities. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 7(12), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v7i12.614
Wynants, S., & Dennis, J. (2018). Professional development in an online context: Opportunities and challenges from the voices of college faculty. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1). https://doi.org//10.9743/JEO2018.15.1.2
Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th edition). SAGE
|
