How can critical reflection be promoted in professional learning communities? Findings from an innovation research project in four schools

Introduction

Professional learning communities (PLCs) can be defined as groups of teachers who come together to engage in regular, systematic, and sustained cycles of inquiry-based learning, with the intention of developing their individual and collective capacity as teachers (Hairon et al., 2017; Katz et al., 2012; Stoll et al., 2006). The members engage in professional learning, which entails becoming competent in and confident with the knowledge base of the profession, using the knowledge base to make and justify decisions, and developing professional identities (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999). Research on PLCs in education has received considerable attention for several years and on several continents (Hipp & Huffman, 2010; Owen, 2016; Riveros et al., 2012; Webb et al., 2009; Zhang & Sun-Keung Pang, 2016). The concept has been investigated internationally in relation to both context and function (Hairon et al., 2017; Stoll et al., 2006). The importance of reflection in PLCs, and how reflection can be defined and described, has also been a focus of attention for researchers during recent years (Benade, 2015; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). Moreover, there seems to be increased international demand for schools to be PLCs, where teachers take responsibility for the students’ learning, and where the teachers have the will to learn from each other in a systematic way to reach these goals (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). However, this emphasis on learning from each other has also been criticized, and the teachers’ learning outcome from these learning communities has been questioned. Several studies have focused on what is said and done in the PLCs to gain insight into how learning processes develop and proceed (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). Researchers underline the importance of critical reflection in learning processes (Wackerhausen, 2009), but little is known about what promotes such reflection.

This study investigates critical reflection in PLCs and presents findings from the innovation research project School-In, where collective capacity and common expectations are defined as goals for developing inclusive schools. This study examines changes in teachers’ reflection in PLCs in four different schools working toward these goals. Focus group discussions are analyzed to identify patterns in the conversation in a pre-post design. According to Bohnsack (2004), this special method – dialog between the schools’ teachers and staff – mirrors the ‘reproduced structures’ in the organization and their common discourse. The communication thus gives us a picture of the school staff’s reflections on the aim of the innovation. The purpose of the innovation is school change. Research shows, based on a study involving the teaching staff in seven primary schools for students from 1st to 10th grade, that critical reflection is the main factor that creates sustainable change in PLCs (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016, p. 205). Hence, our research question is: How can critical reflection be promoted in professional learning communities?

Research on prerequisites for critical reflection in PLCs

Literature on teachers’ reflection suggests that teachers most often reflect on a surface level (Fook & Askeland, 2007). Different approaches in research have shown different aspects and characteristics that need to be present for the professionals to engage in critical reflection (Fook & Askeland, 2007). Hargreaves’ (2002a) research highlights the importance of trust between teachers as a factor to ensure interaction and conflict handling, and to prevent teachers from insulating themselves from opportunities for learning and constructive disagreement. Benade (2015) found that deep engagement with one’s values, beliefs, and assumptions is required as teachers. Teachers must have the courage of their own convictions, be willing to make their ideas public, and get feedback on these ideas. Benade (2015) refers to Dewey, who points to the importance of directed, proactive cognitive activity in reflective practice. And Lund (2020) shows how inquiry in teaching makes teachers reflect on their beliefs and actions by making them visible through teaching alongside their colleagues.

Farrell (2013) has investigated characteristics of experienced teachers, and one of the five characteristics identified is critical reflection. However, the study also shows that teaching experience does not automatically translate into teacher expertise unless teachers consciously and actively reflect on these experiences.

One of the reasons why PLCs are so widely discussed is that they are considered a basis for school development. The link between PLCs and school change can be found in several studies. Cherkowski and Schnellert (2017) show how teacher teams work to achieve school change. Successful teamwork involves sharing stories and experiences about their practice, engaging in honest conversation about their work, pursuing personal interests in their teaching, discussing successful and challenging aspects of their practice, and becoming more open to and interested in involving outside resources to enrich their conversations and plans. This is not always the case. It can be dependent on how teachers’ expectations are organized and perceived in school organizations (Ingebrigtsvold Sæbø & Midtsundstad, 2018). One study lines up different characteristics and outcome indicators of effective PLCs, emphasizing the importance of collegiums with the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community for the collective purpose of enhancing student learning (Stoll et al., 2006). Another study (O’Neill et al., 2013) show how interactive dialog can be important to facilitate students’ learning. Frelin and Grannäs (2015) found in their study that educators, education professionals, and education support professionals creatively use the informal places and spaces in school to diverge from their assigned functions and their given responsibilities in order to create relationships intended to help students to succeed. Brodie (2021) shows how various elements of teachers’ professional lives can influence their participation in PLCs: time, resources, constraints, workloads, school hierarchies, and trust in the system and in the PLCs. Those who do engage in the PLCs develop a new sense of professional identity in relation to collaborating with each other as well as in relation to understanding their learners in new ways (Brodie, 2021). How to promote this kind of development is of critical importance because research shows that reflections in schools’ PLCs can increase the individual and collective capacity of teachers.

Theoretical framework

Research on PLCs has been criticized for imprecise definitions and descriptions on the main concept of reflection (Benade, 2015; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). In this study we use Wackerhausen’s theory to define and describe reflection. Wackerhausen does not use the concept of PLCs, but rather, he uses ‘communities of practice’, a term which is connected to the social theory of learning by Wenger (Farnsworth et al., 2016). In our study, Wackerhausen’s theory is used to investigate how to promote critical reflection and common expectations in PLCs.

According to Wackerhausen (2009), reflection always has a framework of four factors: We reflect on something, with something, from something and in something. Reflection is also situated on two levels: first-order reflection, which focuses only on how things are or how they should have been, and second-order reflection, which views practices with a critical eye. Wackerhausen (2008) explains how reflections must always be about a subject, a theme, or a problem. The reflections must concern concepts, suppositions, and knowledge. They have to grow from interests, motivation, values, and objectives, and they must be in the context of a collegium or an inter-disciplinary group. He also shows that there can be great variation in the participants’ thinking, even if a group of people discusses and reflects on one and the same issue. The participants may nevertheless discuss and reflect on different concepts, different goals and values, and in different contexts. Based on this understanding, the reflection in PLCs seems to be dependent on concepts and understanding in the community, the school context, and the various experiences the participants have with the issue for reflection.

Based on Wackerhausen’s theory, we understand that when professional learning communities (PLCs) are characterized by first-order reflection, the participants think about the same subjects, themes or problems, with the same concepts, suppositions and knowledge, and from the same interests, motivation, values, and objectives. To remain in the community, the participants must be loyal to the custom in speech and action.

PLCs characterized by second-order reflection challenge the established experiences, success criteria, and action knowledge. They reveal the custom and turn it into a subject for reflection. Second-order reflection requires concepts, knowledge, perspectives and resources from a ‘foreign territory’ with foreign experiences and professional knowledge.

A great deal of research focuses on how PLCs can support each teacher to increase student outcome and promote the quality of teachers’ relationships with their students (DuFour, 2004; Prenger et al., 2017; Ramberg et al., 2019). In our study, we focus on collective reflective processes in PLCs concerning common expectations to enhance inclusion.

The study

Project ‘School-In’ is an innovation research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council, established as a partnership between five municipalities and a university in Norway. International research points to the importance of developing a school’s collective capacity (Fullan, 2012). The aim of the innovation School-In is to enhance inclusive school development through collective capacity and common expectations, as part of national school development (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). Research shows that gaining collective capacity requires teachers’ involvement (Hargreaves, 2002b; Hopkins et al., 2014; Stoll et al., 2006; Timperley, 2008).

The School-In project is an innovation process consisting of six steps conducted in seven participating schools (Dalehefte & Midtsundstad, 2019). Step 1 involves a school visit and mapping how the teaching staff experience their school’s support, based on focus group interviews and a questionnaire. The findings from the focus groups and the questionnaire aim to identify the school’s potential for further development of collective capacity and common expectations (Ingebrigtsvold Sæbø & Midtsundstad, 2018). In step 2, the findings from the mapping are presented to the school staff, and compared to schools that practise inclusion as communities with inclusive characteristics (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014). In step 3, the teaching staff are divided into mixed groups of colleagues from different levels within the school, and the eight most significant findings in their school are discussed using a method called mental mapping response (Hillen, Forthcoming). Each finding is formulated as a claim, for instance: ‘Students’ background affects the teachers’ expectations of students’ behavior and performance. The groups discuss and sort the findings that are written on cards in the following categories: ‘wrong’, ‘surprising’, ‘recognizable’, or ‘requires action’. This enables a process in which different opinions on the findings become apparent, verbalized, and modified by different viewpoints in the groups (Dalehefte & Midtsundstad, 2019). The results of the different group discussions are finally presented in a plenary process, and the main subject for the innovation is voted on. In this way, the staff themselves determine the direction of the innovation in a kind of democratic process (Dalehefte et al., 2018). In steps 3 and 4, the School-In team provides the teaching staff with theoretical knowledge and research about the chosen development area to highlight its importance. Then, the innovation employs methods fostering dialog and cooperation. This is conducted through a combination of two work forms: a dialog cafè (Ingebrigtsvold Sæbø, Forthcoming) and a reflection cycle (Fischer et al., 2012). The Dialog Cafè is based on the work form World Cafè (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). The staff is introduced to questions about their chosen focus of development, which they discuss in the mixed groups at five different tables. The mixed groups start at one table and discuss one question at each table. During the Dialog café, they go from table to table discussing the various questions with different colleagues, writing down their ideas and thoughts on large sheets of paper. At the end of dialog café, they return to their original groups and choose three ideas they want to explore further. While working with the ideas in the reflection cycle, the groups define goals and measures to try out in practice at different levels in the school. On the next possible occasion, these groups report how they have implemented and experienced the measures. In step 5, the staff participate in focus group interviews and fill in the questionnaire once again to map the experiences of the teaching staff within the project and to evaluate the program effects. In step 6, the school gets feedback on their development and suggestions for further work. In this paper, we use the pre-post focus group discussions from steps 1 and 5 to investigate how the innovation in steps 2–4 affect the school staff’s reflections.

Design and methods

As mentioned, the School-In innovation process consists of six steps, and the first and fifth steps involve focus group discussions. The principal divides the school staff into mixed groups of about eight members. The members should have different academic expertise and responsibilities in the school. Groups consisting of various members provide the best opportunities for discussing school and common practice. The members are part of the same group throughout the innovation. The first focus group discussions are conducted in late August, and the last one in November, by the same group of people, with 12 weeks in between. In this paper, we focus on the qualitative analyses of transcribed focus group discussions, with the aim being to investigate the development of staff’s reflections from the beginning to the end of the innovation.

Seven schools in southern Norway applied to participate with their whole staff in the project School-In. Results from pre and post focus group discussions in the first four of the participating schools form the basis of the data presented in this study. The teaching staff participate collectively in focus group discussions – a concept and methodology described by Bohnsack (2004). This approach differs from ordinary focus group interviews in that the focus lies on the conversation between the participants (Bohnsack, 2004). ‘In the sense of reconstructive methodology, researchers have to create the right conditions to make it possible for the structure of the case to unfold according to its own typical rules’ (Bohnsack, 2004, p. 218). Therefore, follow-up questions are only permitted if the discourse grinds to a halt, and it is necessary to re-establish the momentum (Bohnsack, 2004).

The transcribed group discussions are analyzed to identify collective orientation patterns in the reflection among the participants (Bohnsack, 2004). Thus, the basic units for the analysis should be: (a) interactions rather than individual actions, and (b) interactions in their social context (Morley, 1998). This, then, enables the orientation patterns in different focus group discussions to be analyzed in different contexts. The discussions are analyzed according to five different patterns: (A) ‘from general topics to more personal topics’, (B) ‘from describing practices to critical reflection on practices’, (C) ‘from silent or common agreement to exchange of opinions’, (D) ‘from divided teamwork to collective processes’, and (E) from personal to collective responsibility of the students. Focusing on patterns allows us to analyze and compare the discussions in different schools and to discuss changes in the patterns of reflection.

The complete data material consists of eight focus group discussions, two at each of the four schools, with approximately 50 participants involved at each school. For each of the eight focus group discussions, we have analyzed and compared the development patterns of reflection in the different schools. The findings will be presented in the following sections.

Findings

We will now present characteristics of the discussions in the beginning and at the end of the innovation, and we will show examples of how the reflections have changed during School-In while working with collective capacity and common expectations.

In the beginning of the innovation, we find that the communication is characterized by (A) reservations, hints, and general themes, (B) description of practice, (C) common agreement without discussions, (D) reservations against cooperation between year levels and collective decisions, and (E) use of the term ‘my students’. At the end of the innovation, we find that the communication is characterized by (A) clear communication including personal topics, (B) critical reflection on their own and the school’s practice, (C) exchange of opinions and discussions with room for disagreement, (D) openness to cooperation between year levels and shared choices, and (E) use of the term ‘our students’.

The analyses show a clear change from the beginning of the innovation to the end in all four schools. In the following sections, these changes are illustrated by presenting them in five categories: (A) ‘from general topics to more personal topics’, (B) ‘from describing practices to critical reflection on practices’, (C) ‘from silent or common agreement to exchange of opinions’, (D) ‘from divided teamwork to collective processes’, and (E) from personal to collective responsibility of the students. These findings (A–E) indicate movement in the discussions from first-order to second-order reflection.

The analyses of the patterns show a change ‘from general to more personal topics’. In the pre focus group discussions, the participants are reluctant to share their thoughts. In the post focus group discussions, however, the teachers in all four schools discuss freely, without hesitation and with examples from their personal lives. The characteristics of the change may be described as going from being loyal to the custom to being personal and honest in discussions with colleagues. Here is an example from the conversation in one of the post focus groups: They discussed the value of gathering groups of children in their homes in the evenings. One teacher said: ‘Some children haven’t got much to in the evenings, and these groups are very including. But as a mother, I am getting crazy, because I have very busy evenings myself. A lot of us have’.

Another change in the collective reflection is the transformation ‘from describing practices to critical reflection on practice’. In the first focus group discussions, the patterns are clearly oriented to the boundaries between the year levels, and they reflect on the value of this. The selection of group members forces teachers to work across year levels. Several teachers are against this in the beginning of the innovation, but at the end, they see how it elicits different discussions. One example from a post-focus group discussion: ‘We have lived separate lives, lower levels like this and higher levels like that. We do not know much about what the others do’.

The patterns show a change ‘from silent or common agreement to exchange of opinion’. At the end of the innovation, the discussions in the focus groups are characterized by trust and openness. The teachers are open about their own shortcomings and dare to oppose what is decided. The characteristics of the change may be described as a process from silent agreement with the other colleagues’ decisions to free exchange of opinions. The use of yellow reflective vests is one of the subjects in a post focus group. The discussion goes like this: ‘We have got better at wearing the vests, and we hope the students notice that’. ‘I do not use a vest’. ‘But it is very important for the children to easily see us’. ‘Yes, but I must admit, I struggle with the vest’.

Through the innovation, we find that the teachers have gone ‘from divided teamwork to collective processes’. Several teachers agree on the measure of common rules. They see that common rules and expectations in conflict situations, for example, can make daily life easier for both teachers and students. In the discussions, the following statement is made: ‘Everything that we manage to make common makes things easier. The things that are not common are always a challenge. We get conflicts every time. It is very easy if we agree on all the rules. That makes it easier for both teachers and students. They know what they are supposed to do. It makes it safe for the vulnerable. Conflict cases get easier’.

Through the innovation, the teachers see the value of mixed groups, and the importance of functioning as a professional learning community with everyone involved. Here are two examples from these conversations: ‘In the beginning, we were very skeptical to mixing teams, but we have to mix teams in order to be more alike in the whole school, so there are some advantages to being more mixed’. The Dialog Café was highlighted as a valuable work form in all four schools, and several teachers lifted up this in the focus group discussions: 'In the dialogue café, we sit at tables with many different people, that we normally do not work with. This is very positive!’ ‘The Dialog Café, – we met almost everyone. It bubbled over. Everyone was all in, opinionated, critical. It was evolving’.

In the beginning of the innovation, the teachers in all four schools talk about their classes and their students. At the end, however, they talk about the school’s students and everyone’s students. Some point out collective responsibility for all the students, and not only their class: ‘Everyone has a sense that they are everyone’s students. Everyone cares about everyone. This has been a bit indistinct earlier. Now it seems like everyone, even the custodian, considers the students as ours’.

Discussion

This article has illustrated how an innovation can influence the reflection in PLCs. Referring to previous research, we will discuss what School-In can contribute to the field and discuss the reasons behind the change in reflection that we see in five areas.

Conclusion

Based on research, the discussion in this article supports exciting research on different aspects of importance for critical reflections in professional learning communities. We know that PLCs develop over time, and that trust (Hargreaves, 2002a), courage (Wackerhausen, 2009), and honesty (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2017) are prerequisites for critical reflection on one’s practices. The focus on critical reflection is important because it is the main factor that can create sustainable change (Vanblaere & Devos, 2018; Wackerhausen, 2009).

A review of research on programs for learning communities points to several critical factors such as ‘not actively engaging teachers in learning activities, not embedding ideas in the curriculum, school settings or classroom settings and not inviting collective participation’ (Kennedy, 2016, p. 973). In our study, we have tried to involve the teachers in cooperation for school development. We have attempted to follow Kennedys’ challenge; to move past the concept of learning communities per se and begin examining how such groups discuss and the nature of the intellectual work in which they are engaged (Kennedy, 2016). Using School-In’s work forms, the staff develop mutual trust and honesty and they can see that collective reflection across levels can lead to more effective work, build a common identity, and expand their understanding of their students.

The study presented here shows that reflective work forms are essential for the school staff to share their knowledge. The staff express: ‘In the dialog café, we met almost everyone in the school staff. It bubbled over. Everyone was all in, opinionated, critical. It was stimulating’. This typical quote highlights the importance of working in mixed groups, across levels and teams, as well as the importance of being able to criticize and investigate established practices and structures. In the study presented, the staff members develop measures together and share the real experience of testing them out with their colleagues, thereby turning their reflections into actions. They get to evaluate and apply measures that improve their practice and adjust these after discussing the collective efforts. This shows that thinking critically and creating change is more comfortable and feels safer when the staff members are part of and supported by a group that is trying out new measures together. Hence, we argue that collective capacity is especially strengthened when the work is carried out in mixed groups developing measures together, since this facilitates joint, critical reflection without fear. Common expectations are reinforced by collective measures, making the staff aware of expectations toward themselves and each other. They break a barrier by developing a common practice.

This article focuses on how critical reflection can be promoted in professional learning communities. We have argued that innovation releases teachers’ knowledge and experiences, enabling them to carry out second-order reflection and to critically analyzing their personal and the school’s practice. Thus, the article points at the need for further research on how to inspire, encourage, and facilitate school staff to develop their reflection together. Our study is a contribution not only to research on school development as such, but also to reflection and practical work in schools. The School-In innovation can systematize how school leaders can lead teachers’ development by using the school staff’s competence to reflect together. They become aware of a need to develop their collective capacity further because they see how they as colleagues are dependent on each other and can give each other necessary support in the everyday schoolwork.