Conference Agenda

Much of the research in the field of professional development through collaboration concerns collaboration that is organised and evaluates methods (Webster-Wright 2009, Svendsen 2019); for example, groups of teachers working actively with critical reflection in relation to their teaching practice. However, interactions that teachers engage in professionally also originate spontaneously, take less formal shape, and address a wide variety of aspects of the work, in line with what Wenger (1998) called communities of practice. Communities of practice require a domain of interest, an interactive community consisting of people learning from each other, as well as a shared practice to navigate in. The frequency of interaction can vary and so can the awareness or intention of learning (Wenger 2009). Teachers interacting in professional social networks form such communities of practice and can impact, reinforce or resist professional development and implementation of new educational practice (Datnow 2012). Knowledge about opportunities and constraints in the networks in relation to perceived value can help identify needs of structural support for teacher interaction and how to configurate formally organised networks to reinforce organisational learning (Datnow 2012).

A large survey by Parding et al. (2018), shows that teachers in upper secondary school in Sweden to a larger extent appreciate and value collaboration between teachers over other types of professional development. The authors of the report conclude that teachers “…know how they want to learn (to a large degree by colleagues), but they do not deem that the organisation is structured in a way that allow them to do this to a satisfying extent” (my translation from Swedish) (Parding et al. 2018). These results call for a closer look at teachers’ opportunities and constraints in relation to their professional social networks.

The opportunity for teachers’ professional development is influenced by local culture (Hargreaves 1994), national politics and local conditions such as the size and age of schools and closeness to universities (Parding et al. 2017). Other contextual conditions can also be of relevance, for example subject specific aspects. The present study focusses on biology teachers in upper secondary education in Sweden. In Swedish schools, biology is a small subject replaced by common courses in natural science in many of the programmes given. This means that many of the biology teachers in small schools lack subject colleagues, which can affect their opportunities for interaction with colleagues within the subject (Williams et al. 2010). Therefore, biology teachers might require structures that can support interactions with contacts outside of their school.

The aim of this study was to go into detail in the professional social networks of biology teachers in upper secondary school in relation to perceived needs to enable discussion on how organisational support could be strengthened. Perceived value of contacts in the networks was related to the teachers’ level of experience, access to subject colleagues and to how they perceived similarity in views on teaching with their contacts, important for both trust, collaboration and opportunities for critical discussion. Based on my results, I discuss which opportunities for collaboration require strengthening and support to facilitate teacher collaboration and development of biology education in Swedish schools from the teachers’ perspective. The research questions addressed are:

(1) How do the biology teachers describe their professional social networks in terms of different types of contacts, who they turn to for inspiration and help and how they perceived similarity and value of different contacts?

(2) How do the professional social networks of the biology teachers relate to areas they perceive as important to collaborate on?

(Inter)professional collaboration among teachers and professionals from related fields is widely perceived as a prerequisite for implementing effective inclusive practice (Alborno, 2017; Suc et al., 2017). Despite its benefits for students as well as for involved professionals, Mulholland and O'Connor (2016) perceive its implementation as largely aspirational; it is facing many challenges, such as time constraints or ad hoc planning.

According to Švec et al. (in press), collaborative practices are often realised as a combination of the indirect and the direct model (cf. Hedegaard-Soerensen et al., 2017). Both models appear to be interconnected and mutually influenced; the nature and content of interactions with students (direct model) are based on the communication and agreement between the collaborating professionals (indirect model). The study emphasises the dominant role of professional relationships in the indirect model of inter(professional) collaboration, which subsequently affects the collaboration in the direct model; collaboration is naturally regarded as more satisfactory when the professional relationship is perceived as positive. Therefore, another key factor that influences the consistency and success of (inter)professional collaboration is professional relationships between collaborating individuals (Bennett et al., 2021).

Whether professional or personal, relationships can be undoubtedly regarded as a multidimensional concept which can be characterised and operationalized in multiple ways. In the current study, we aim to characterise professional relationships mainly through communication between collaborating professionals. In accordance with the cultural-historical activity theory (see Engeström, 2001), we perceive communication as a central aspect of human activity and as a key mediator of social and cultural processes. The theory suggests that communication is both shaped by and helps to shape social and cultural practices. In the case of (inter)professional collaboration, the communication is focused both on a shared object (goal) and interactions between involved professionals. More specifically, we focus on reflective communication that includes questioning and revising the script; it enables a shift from individualistic actions and specific objects of particular professionals toward an expanded, shared object and the transformation of their collective activity (Paju, 2021). Communication based on reflection allows one to “step back” and evaluate decisions (and actions) that were taken, leading to better understanding and improved practice in the future (Adams et al., 2016).

However, evidence suggests that communication in (inter)professional teams faces specific challenges. Based on their different disciplinary backgrounds and experiences, collaborating professionals may have different perspectives about students, resulting in conflicting opinions about best possible practices and solutions. Therefore, what is perceived as a crucial benefit of interprofessional collaboration, represents also a possible ground for misunderstanding in communication (Bokhour, 2006). Moreover, interprofessional discourse is often complicated by poor flow of information which may be one-sided or even non-existent in some cases (Ekornes, 2015; Engeström, 2001).

Bearing in mind the importance of positive professional relationships and (functional) reflective communication, the current study adopted the “best practice” approach. We aim to describe the communication and relationships between teachers and professionals from related fields who perceive their collaboration as functional and satisfactory. Apart from broadening the knowledge on (inter)professional collaboration, research on (inter) professional relationships and communication might provide valuable inspiration for teachers, related professionals and school administrators.

Adaptive Learning Technologies (ALTs) are put forward as a mean to support adaptive teaching in classrooms (Aleven, McLaughlin, Glenn, & Koedinger, 2016). Core features of ALTs are that they monitor students’ performance data and select learning content and problems adjusted to an individual student’s performance (Molenaar, Bakker, Knoop-van Campen, & Hasselman, 2017). The integration of these technologies in classrooms creates a novel instructional context in which teachers have to learn how to integrate the ALT into their adaptive teaching practices (Cijvat et al., submitted; Molenaar & Knoop-van Campen, 2017).

According to the professional development model of Desimone (2009) teachers develop new knowledge about the possibilities and constraints of the ALT and use these to change their teaching practices. To be able to change their teaching practices, teachers need to move beyond their routine teaching skills, and apply novel adaptive actions in which they try out novel skills and strategies (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, Hammerness, & Beckett, 2005; Molenaar & Knoop-van Campen, 2017). Coburn (2004) indicated that applying novel adaptive actions asks of teachers to regulate their own learning and teaching. We adapted Desimone’s model by adding ‘teacher’s self-regulated teaching’ between ‘increased teacher knowledge’ and ‘change in teaching practices’ (Desimone, 2009;). We define teacher’s SRT as ‘teacher’s translation of increased knowledge into novel teaching actions by using the cyclical phases of SRL: planning, monitoring, control and reflection’ (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021; Zimmerman, 2000). The teacher plans (sets goals and plans novel adaptive actions), monitors (whether processes and actions are working out as expected), controls (and adjusts actions and strategies when needed) and reflects (on the novel adaptive action). This reflection could be focused on improvement in student learning, but ideally also focuses on teacher self-improvement of adaptive teaching practices (Dunn & Shriner, 1999). When the teacher translates the reflection into a new goal and plans a novel adaptive action in the next lesson, the cycle of self-regulated teaching will start again (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021; Zimmerman, 2000).

All kinds of reflection enables teachers to act in a deliberate way, what Schön (1987) refers to as ‘reflection-on-action’. Reflection focused on improvement in student learning is what teachers often do and what is valuable for their daily teaching practices, but is it likely that after some time they will fall back on their repertoire of routine actions without substantially improving their adaptive teaching skills (Coburn, 2004). Reflection focused on teacher self-improvement could lead to substantially improvement of their adaptive teaching skills and maintain teaching expertise. This kind of reflection on novel actions would also make a major difference during the cycle of self-regulated teaching: in the goal that is set, and the information that is used during monitoring and control (Dunn & Shriner, 1999; Endedijk, Brekelmans, Sleegers, & Vermunt, 2016).

Several studies indicate that teachers face multiple challenges regulating their own professional learning at the workplace (Kramarski & Heaysman, 2021). According to Randi (2004), teacher’s SRT processes are naturally implicit, becoming apparent only when teachers are explicitly challenged to deliberately use these self-regulated teaching actions. In an earlier study, we described that teachers differed in their reflections on adaptive actions. Some reflected quite specific on what they had done and why, while others reflected rather global or could not tell what they did or why. This provided first indications that teachers differ in how they selfregulate their teaching (Cijvat et al., submitted). To be able to answer the question whether teachers need support to selfregulate their adaptive teaching skills and what kind of support, we first need to have insight in how teachers regulate their teaching.