Relational agency and teacher development: a CHAT analysis of a collaborative professional inquiry project with biology teachers
Abstract
Teacher quality largely determines student outcomes and many argue for high quality teacher training and professional development (PD). Much PD has been heavily critiqued and what constitutes effective provision for teachers remains contested. Disenfranchisement of teachers, through neglect of prior expertise and failure to acknowledge teachers’ working contexts, some argue, are to blame. A PD project with five biology teachers and a teacher educator, grounded within a cultural, historical activity theoretical (CHAT) tradition, was initiated to address these shortcomings. Edwards’ concept of relational agency was employed to investigate and interpret teacher collaboration. Teachers’ perceptions about the project were gathered using free-response questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, with the data being analysed using a CHAT framework. The positive impact on teacher practice reported here was related to having opportunities to own and be responsible for one’s own and others’ development, exploiting the distributed expertise available and supporting collaborative work.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Practitioner research can provide an affordance for agency because it can give teachers an authoritative basis for their views.
“McNicholl (2013) argues that practitioner research can provide an affordance for agency as it can give teachers an authoritative basis for their views.”
From Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? (2017) · cites this paper as McNicholl (2013)
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.2307/1167272 · Cited by 2,288 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, collaborative inquiry-based PD should also be grounded upon the assumption that teachers possess what Cochran-Smith and Lytle ( 1999 ) refer to as ‘knowledge of practice’, where knowers and knowledge are connected to larger political and social agendas.”
BackgroundAffordance, conventions, and design
Norman, D. A. (1999) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/301153.301168 · Cited by 2,040 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us?
Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017) · Professional Development in Education · doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1180316 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
- Authors
- McNicholl, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McNicholl, Jane
- Venue
- European Journal of Teacher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-06-19
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 218-232
- ISSN
- 0261-9768 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5928
- OpenAlex
- W1982724310
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 3.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Teacher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- relational agency, teacher professional development, biology teachers, cultural-historical activity theory, teacher collaboration, teacher agency, distributed expertise, teacher perceptions, teacher quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review