A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in collaborative settings
Abstract
A considerable amount of current research on teaching and teacher education focuses on teacher collaboration. Teacher collaboration is presumed to be a powerful learning environment for teachers’ professional development. However, empirical research about how teachers actually learn in collaborative settings is lacking. In this study, learning activities were explored in relation to reported changes in cognition and/or behaviour of six teachers that participated in collaborative groups. These six teachers were interviewed after group meetings and also asked to report learning experiences in a digital logbook six times during a period of one year. Qualitative analyses of both data sources resulted in seven configurations of (successions of) learning activities and reported changes in cognition and/or behaviour. A closer look at these configurations showed that (successions of) learning activities in collaborative settings resulted mostly in reported changes in cognition. These reported changes in cognition often concerned confirmation of own ideas or teaching methods. The high number of confirmations of own ideas or teaching methods may be explained by the reform context in which these teachers work. Teachers who are experimenting with new teaching methods can feel insecure about these newly acquired methods and, therefore, seek confirmation from their colleagues.
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?
There is little detailed evidence of what happens inside professional learning communities or of teacher agency in action.
“However, it has also been argued that there is little detailed evidence of what happens inside professional learning communities or of teacher agency in action.”
From Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? (2017) · cites this paper as Meirink, Meijer & Verloop 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tam, A. C. F. (2015) · Teachers and Teaching · doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.928122 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
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
- Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Meirink, Jacobiene A.
- Venue
- Teachers and Teaching
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-03-22
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-164
- ISSN
- 1354-0602 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1278
- OpenAlex
- W2068719263
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 39.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teachers and Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- teacher collaboration, teacher professional development, individual learning, learning activities, cognitive change, behavior change, educational reform, teaching methods
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