Networked professional learning:
relating the formal and the informal
Matthieu Vaessenᵃ,
Antoine van den Beemtᵇ, Maarten de Laatᵃ
a Welten
Institute, Open
University, Heerlen, the Netherlands
b
Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of
Technology, the Netherlands
Article received 17
February 2014 / revised 31 March 2014 / accepted 30 June
2014 / available online 15 July 2014
Abstract
The increasing
complexity of the workplace environment requires teachers and
professionals in general to tap into their social networks,
inside and outside circles of direct colleagues and
collaborators, for finding appropriate knowledge and
expertise. This collective process of sharing and constructing
knowledge can be considered 'networked learning'. The
processes involved are informal and largely invisible to the
official framework of the organisation. Consequently, a large
amount of learning that takes place is unrecognised and the
dynamics, impacts and benefits of such networked learning are
often overlooked by organisations. This situation brings about
tensions between formal and informal processes, which in turn
raise issues concerning adequate professional development,
professional autonomy and management. It also leads to
questions about facilitating the creation and exchange of
knowledge and expertise within the existing social networks.
Taking an interdisciplinary approach, we explore a number of
educational and organisational studies. Our key questions are:
what are the formal and informal mechanisms underlying
networked professional learning, related to professional
development, autonomy and management? How can networked
learning be positioned in the most optimal way? Currently, a
clear academic understanding of how to optimally align and
make use of networked learning is lacking. The goal of our
exploratory review is to describe mechanisms that influence
the alignment of informal and formal learning of teachers
within their workplace: schools. We work towards a theoretical
and practical integration of the different chosen fields by
means of a framework of mechanisms related to networked
learning.
1. Introduction
Entering the 21st century,
pervasive communication technologies together with increased
attention for situational knowledge have resulted in an emphasis
on collaboration and exchange, highlighting the importance of
social networks both within organisations and across
organisational borders (Lieberman, 2000; Price, 2013; Pugh &
Prusak, 2013). Making good use of social networks has become
increasingly important in educational settings, where teachers
develop relationships within and outside schools that help them
to learn, solve problems, and innovate their teaching (De Laat,
2012). Access to networks resulting from these informal
relationships has become an important aspect of continued
professional development. These informal networks help teachers
to deal with the increasing complexity of their work. Research
shows that most of what professionals learn is learnt informally
(Cross, 2007), which
highlights the need for professional autonomy and personal
creativity in problem-solving and professional development.
Furthermore, research shows the need to understand the role and
impact of informal social networks on teacher professional
development (Villegas-Reimers, 2003; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2009; Boud & Hager, 2012; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
1.1 The value of
networked professional learning
Networked learning is a
perspective on social learning that describes how participants
learn through communication, exchange and connections. People in
a person's network can be seen as a source of knowledge
(Siemens, 2004). Learning in networks can be informal (a chat
during a break) or formal (attending a group training), and the
networks themselves can be formal (a taskforce) or informal
(talking to a student's parent). Learning networks often can be
of value when we are in need of certain knowledge, especially
the ‘weak ties’; those people that we know but don’t interact
with very often can have something ‘new’ to offer (Granovetter,
1973). Learning in networks is nothing new, it happens where
people interact and gain experience (Eraut, 2004), connected to
the work context (Billet, 2004). Professional learning has
proven to drive organisational learning and innovation (Bessant
et al., 2012).
Addressing complex problems is a forte of the networked learning
paradigm (Earl & Katz, 2007; Hodgson, De Laat, McDonnel
& Ryberg, 2014).
1.1.1 Networked learning
and professional development
In spite of the proven
importance of informal networks, professional development of
teachers is almost invariably approached in a largely formal
manner (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009; Villegas-Reimers,
2003). School organisations often think of schooling in terms of
hiring an expert, in-house training, or individual training
trajectories such as coaching. However, formal trajectories are
seldom tailored to the challenges teachers face in daily
practice. Furthermore, these challenges at work induce teachers
to learn informally (Billet, 2004). Both formal trajectories and
informal learning processes are part of the learning of
teachers, and professionals in general (Billet, 2002; Le Clus,
2011). Unfortunately, this continuous process of workplace
learning, where people customarily exchange knowledge with
others in their networks, is hardly ever recognised as
professional development. As such, informal learning processes
are often overlooked by the management and as a consequence do
not receive adequate attention. This suboptimal situation
(Billet, 2004; De Laat, 2012) can be remedied by aligning formal
and informal learning processes through networked learning.
Instead of contrasting
formal with informal learning, we emphasise the need to develop
a hybrid form of learning where both formal and informal
learning activities are recognised and promoted (cf. McGuire &
Gubbins, 2010). This requires a new role from school management,
one that expands a culture of learning by creating social
learning spaces for professional development (De Laat, 2012).
Growing evidence is available that shows how informal
professional development can be given a place within the formal
organisational context by establishing learning networks and
professional learning communities, such as ‘communities of
practice’ (cf. Wenger, Dermott & Snyder, 2002). Promoting
and strengthening these informal networks builds on the already
existing social structures and networks within and between
schools (cf. Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005; De Laat, 2012).
1.1.2 Networked
learning and professional autonomy
Participation in learning
networks is aimed at sharing knowledge and expertise as
individuals personally see fit. Networked learning, in our view,
is aimed at promoting professional autonomy, self-directedness
and independent decision-making. Networked learning opens up the
social environment to optimally make use of (new) possibilities
to connect to other professionals (cf. De Laat, 2012). For
networked learning to be effectively integrated into the
organisation, a balanced and integrated approach is required
(Agterberg, 2012). Since informal learning through networks is
often bottom-up, self-governing, spontaneous and
practice-driven, it is not an easy task to combine this with the
formal need for control and performance: management and
‘personnel’ have different roles and outlooks (Fuller &
Unwin, 2003; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hodkinson &
Hodkinson, 2005) As soon as the management gets involved too
much, participants in learning networks risk losing their sense
of autonomy, the result of which can be loss of motivation
(Agterberg, 2012; Kubiak & Bertram, 2010). Related to issues
of teacher autonomy are teachers’ influence on management
control and leadership (Forrester, 2000) as well as teachers’
participation in planning and innovation (De Laat, 2012).
1.1.3 Networked
learning and management
Providing autonomy, which
allows individuals to interact and develop expertise as they see
fit, means lowering formal control (Hulsbos, Andersen, Kessels
& Wassink, 2012). This brings into view issues of management
and leadership, which directly influence the amount of
professional autonomy that individuals have in the organisation
(Bass, 1991; Tynjälä, 2013). With greater individual autonomy,
thinking, learning and acting independently is increased and
people can personally take up responsibility. This requires a
different style of leadership, where responsibilities are shared
among the members of the organisation: distributed leadership.
Distributed leadership promotes the sharing of knowledge and
increases motivation for work and learning (Spillane, 2008).
When leaders pay attention to informal factors in the
organisation, such as the personal interests of individuals
(i.e. ‘transformative leadership’) this increases commitment to
organisation goals. This can be contrasted with purely
transactional leadership, which functions according to
standards, performance and rewards, which can engender
mediocrity in the organisation (Bass, 1991). To create an
organisation where the day-to-day complexity is successfully
dealt with and different interests are accounted for, where
responsibility is shared and where people can grow and together
create value and quality, the management needs to shift focus
from a traditional centralised role to a position that reflects
a deeper insight into the dynamics of the organisation. This
entails an integrated view of formal and informal dynamics.
Directions and strategies can be developed ‘top-down’ as well a
‘bottom-up’ (Groot and Homan, 2012). Networked learning then
involves the organisation as a whole, management as well as
teachers.
1.1.4 Aim of this study
We have argued the
importance of informal networked learning and illustrated how
this relates to professional development, autonomy and
management of informal and formal learning in organisations.
However, to date, these areas of research have not been
integrated in the scientific literature. Theory in the field of
teacher professional development is still much under development
(McCormick, 2010). Findings from the private sector can advance
theory and practice in the public sector (Binz-Scharf, Lazer,
& Mergel, 2011).
In this study we examine
underpinning mechanisms, using a networked learning perspective,
in order to develop a better conceptual understanding and to
examine how this facilitates a better alignment of informal and
formal learning in organisations. Since professional development
of teachers is directly related to teaching quality
(Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009; Villegas-Reimers, 2003), we
deem it important that this topic receives the attention it
deserves.
1.2 The
‘iceberg’ metaphor as background of our study: formal and
informal working and learning
The formal side of how
things are officially organised, and the informal side of how in
everyday life people work, learn, experience and give meaning to
their work, are two faces of the organisation. The analogy of an
iceberg illustrates this point. The visible tip of the iceberg
represents the formal organisation, where planned decisions are
made and organisational structures are developed in order to
divide the work, create order, and provide stability. Under the
waterline we find the huge mass of the iceberg, largely
invisible, informally structured, yet much larger and often at
least as influential as the official organisation structures,
consisting of everything that is not formal (De Caluwe and
Vermaak, 2003; De Laat, 2012).
‘Formal’ and ‘informal’
aspects of working and learning both are part of professional
life and play a role at the level of individuals, groups, and
organisations. The worlds ‘above’ and ‘under’ water mutually
influence each other: by interacting in networks people create
and influence both the formal and the informal organisation.
Within both formal and informal networks we find aspects of
control, autonomy, performance, development and management.
Actions and procedures can be planned or spontaneous, visible or
invisible, controlled or chaotic, under orders or autonomous.
Both formal procedures and informal influences are crucial for
the organisation and its members (Brown, Collins & Duguid,
1989; Snowden, 2005). Formal and informal mechanisms play a role
for all individuals, groups and organisations, be it ‘above
water’, or ‘under water’.
2.
Research question
In this paper we research
the mechanisms underlying networked professional learning in
order to increase our understanding of how to optimally align
networked learning in the school organisation.
Our key questions are:
·
What are the formal and informal mechanisms
underlying networked professional learning, related to
professional development, autonomy and management?
·
How can networked learning be positioned in the
most optimal way?
The term mechanism is used
here as: the way in which something functions.
We first address how
networked learning contributes to professional development.
Then, because a prerequisite for networked learning is the
possibility of spontaneous and autonomous action and
decision-making, we outline how networked learning is related to
professional autonomy. Lastly, we explore how networked learning
is related to issues of management and leadership.
Literature in these
different research areas has until now not been integrated, and
we work toward a framework in order to bring these different
areas together. We do this by means of analysing formal and
informal mechanisms that play a role in networked learning.
3. Methodology
The studies presented in
this exploratory review were identified in several systematic
steps. First, searches on the database of EBSCOhost were
applied. We chose this database as it is a multi-disciplinary
meta-database that allows to search for articles that covers
studies in education and professional development, management
and organisational learning. EBSCOhost includes, amongst others,
the databases of Academic Search Elite, Business Source Premier,
E-Journals, PsycINFO, and ERIC. Peer reviewed journal articles
and international peer reviewed book chapters published between
January 1st 2004 and January 1st 2014 were included in the
search. The following keywords were used for a Boolean search:
‘networked learning’ OR 'learning networks' AND ‘professional
development’ AND ‘teachers’ NOT ‘online’. This search resulted
in 74 articles. The aim of the literature research was to
recognise formal and informal mechanisms underlying networked
learning, related to professional development, professional
autonomy and management. For this purpose, the abstract, summary
and references of all selected sources were studied first, 26
studies were shortlisted and the articles were read, which
resulted in a final selection of 22 sources. The other 52
articles were left out of further analysis because they did not
discuss networked professional development of teachers, or had a
single focus on online learning tools. The snowball method of
checking references in the remaining articles resulted in 22
extra references relevant to our aim. In total 44 studies (see
Appendix 2) were read in depth and provided the basis of our
analysis. The result is an overview of formal and informal
mechanisms involved in networked professional learning. This
overview is then condensed into a conceptual framework.
4. Findings
First we discuss our
findings of how networked learning is related to professional
development. After this, we look at networked learning and
professional autonomy. Then we consider the relation of
networked learning and management. We conclude each section with
an overview of formal and informal mechanisms regarding
networked learning found in the literature.
4.1 Networked
learning and professional development
Professional development
comprises formal and informal activities related to
intellectual, personal and social domains (De Laat, Schreurs
& Nijland, 2013), and can be seen as a “non-linear ongoing
process rather than as an outcome of linear, one-off training
events” (Varga-Atkins, O’Brien, Burton, Campbell & Qualter,
2008, p.42). Furthermore professional development can be
regarded as “a flow of acquired knowledge, as well as
participation in a learning community” (Pahor, Škerlavaj &
Dimovski, 2008). In networked learning communities, knowledge is
constructed and developed, rather than being transferred from
one person to the next (Schultz, 2011). Influence from
colleagues can be noted as a contributing factor in order to
learn and develop, for example, in changing a style of teaching
(Supovitz, Sirinides & May, 2009). It is argued that theory
in the field of professional development still has to be
developed, insights gained from networked learning could
contribute to how and what teachers learn professionally (cf.
Appleby & Hiller, 2012; McCormick, 2010).
Exchange between
individuals happens through formal and informal networks
(Carmichael, Fox, McCormick, Procter & Honour, 2006) and the
flow of knowledge related to professional development occurs
both between organisations and within organisations (Jones,
2006; Seezink, Poell & Kirschner, 2010) as well as
cross-culturally (Ryan, Kang, Mitchell & Gaalen, 2009).
Professional learning activities can be formal (obtaining a
diploma or a degree from an institute), or informal (sharing a
drink after a conference day). Studies comparing effectiveness
of professional development programmes have found that
collaborative approaches are more effective than individual ones
(Varga-Atkins et al., 2010), for example when teachers together
research and evaluate their own practices (Bartlett &
Burton, 2006). Baker‐Doyle and Yoon, (2011) also found that
while teachers personally gather information, it is within and
through social networks that this information comes to life as
it is shared, interpreted, developed and sustained. Professional
development can be seen as an ongoing process of becoming where
people grow and learn in connection with each other and events
in their professional life (Boud & Hager, 2012; Poell &
Van Der Krogt, 2013). Schools however, have traditionally been
formally designed in a way that teachers work individually.
“They have rarely been given time together to plan lessons,
share instructional practices, assess students, design
curriculums, or contribute to administrative or managerial
decisions” (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009, p.11). Increasing
possibilities for communication and exchange across
organisational boundaries is therefore an important aspect of
networked learning initiatives, aiming to bring together people
in order to exchange and create knowledge to support each other.
For example, questions can be explored, new insights can be
discussed, or meeting an expert can provide valuable new
information. Both formal and informal learning opportunities
enable teachers to improve their practice (O’Brien,
Varga-Atkins, Burton, Campbell & Qualter, 2008).
Making social learning
processes part of a learning programme can complement or replace
formal education such as seminars in situations where this
formal education does not address the learning needed. For
example, a project was carried out in a primary school setting
where teachers, parents and other parties outside of the school
studied problems together (Angelides, Georgiou & Kyriakou,
2008). These learning networks, aimed at developing a social
learning approach, were found to facilitate experimentation and
reflection. The teachers felt strengthened in their profession
when being able to collaborate with the outsiders (school
advisors or academics) that came to the school (Angelides et
al., 2008).
Learning through networks
and partnerships within and between schools sustains
contextualised knowledge (Baumfield & Butterworth, 2005).
Beckett (2012) describes a situation in which school staff
operated in a political context focused on targets and
performance levels. The school was situated in a poor area,
which required adaptation and dealing with complexities. The
school staff felt that the government-imposed recommendations
were not reflecting their immediate concerns, and developed a
school network including researchers in order to develop
understanding about the relation between poverty and children’s
educational experiences.
Professional learning
networks can function as a ‘learning incubation centre’ (Attard,
2012). Participating in a learning network can promote
reflective awareness and development through collaborative
analysis, for example when participants note that they “started
to dig deeper into their experience” (p.199). When what happens
in learning networks is of direct relevance to the participants'
needs, this can increase participants’ motivation to engage in
the reflective process that the network entails (Attard, 2012).
The main findings of this
section are: professional learning is an ongoing process, rather
than something occasional, which naturally happens in formal and
informal social structures. Furthermore, networked learning is
often situated and most effective when it is directly related to
the work practices. Promoting collaboration through networks has
proven to be effective to enhance the learning process.
In Table 1 we outline the
formal and informal mechanisms regarding networked learning and
professional development that we have found in this section.
Table 1
Formal and informal
mechanisms in networked learning regarding professional
development
|
Mechanisms |
|
|
'Informal' |
'Formal' |
|
Knowledge is
constructed |
Knowledge is
transferred |
|
Invisible |
Visible |
|
Transcending
borders |
Within
boundaries |
|
Continuous |
Event-driven |
|
Demand-driven |
Supply-oriented |
|
Voluntary |
Under orders |
4.2 Networked
learning and autonomy
If teachers are to improve
their skills, they must have the possibility to influence their
work and the way they learn (cf. Villegas-Reimers, 2003).
Learning networks provide individuals with the opportunity to
learn about topics they personally find of interest to their
practice or personal development. In addition to being able to
choose what they want to learn, networks also open up the
environment by providing links to others outside of the direct
working environment (cf. Büchel & Raub, 2002). The option to
personally choose the areas to explore improves a person’s
performance (Akkerman, Petter & De Laat, 2008) because the
opportunity to choose brings a feeling of responsibility which
increases personal motivation (Varga-Atkins et al., 2010).
Research shows that when teachers have more autonomy they are
more committed and share more of their practices (Hökkä &
Eteläpelto, 2013; Imants, Wubbels & Vermunt, 2013). Trotman
(2009) warns for too much pressure to meet formal performance
standards, pointing out that one should be careful to ensure
that true learning is happening, where professionals are
intrinsically motivated because of their own interest.
For reflective processes to
take place among colleagues, there must be trust, so that
mistakes can be discussed openly and learned from (Hargreaves et
al., 2013). Positive school culture and atmosphere for
collaboration are thus important contributors to quality of
networked professional development (Varga-Atkins et al., 2010).
Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) refer to the notion of an
‘expansive’ rather than a ‘restrictive’ learning environment
where formal learning is combined with an effective approach to
informal and networked learning. Through networked learning,
possibilities for collaboration and personal initiative can be
created (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2005).
Learning networks can
function as open platforms where participants can meet and
develop issues of their own interest. However, issues
surrounding accountability can come up when learning networks
are misunderstood and misused, for example when formal leaders
take part, disturbing genuineness and exchange, or when
financial interests are involved that create pressure (Trotman,
2009). Group processes of power, role ambiguity, and lack of
direction can create complications. When personal responsibility
takes the form of accountability toward control from superiors
or school inspection, spontaneous learning processes can be
impeded (Hargreaves et al., 2013).
Among members of the group
a sense of autonomy is created and sustained and in this sense,
autonomy does not mean acting alone as an isolated individual
(Hargreaves et al., 2013; Imants et al., 2013). A flat
organisation structure and a culture that fosters democracy and
participation, allows for easier contact between people and
increases the chance that networked learning occurs. In open
organisational environments where people freely can use their
networks to connect to each other and learn, it is easier to
find and contact the right person to learn from. Hierarchy and a
centralised culture can hinder possibilities to learn from more
experienced people (Pahor et al., 2008).
Trust is an important
factor when it comes to developing networked learning
communities (Day & Hadfield, 2004; Trotman, 2009). Penuel et
al. (2009) describe how in a school there were more
opportunities to learn from colleagues, because the principal
and the teachers themselves encouraged sharing and
communication. Authority structures were more open, and teachers
often used their networks to go outside the school for helpful
resources. The school showed a pragmatic attitude towards
teachers using these networks and resources, rather than one
requiring formal approval from superiors. This led to a high
level of trust in relationships and a sense of collective
responsibility. More openness, generated by trust and social
coherence, can lead to more success in implementing change and
development (Penuel et al., 2009). Promoting open collaboration
requires trust in order for members to open up, discuss
differences, deal with uncertainty and respect individual
differences (Attard, 2012).
Hökkä and Eteläpelto
(2013), studying autonomy and learning of teachers, note three
aspects to consider in order to improve continuous professional
learning facilitated by networks: teachers often do not identify
with their role as active researchers and developers, barriers
between groups can hinder collaboration between groups in
different fields, and too strongly adhering to one’s views can
limit collaboration, cultural change and organisational
learning. Hanraets, Hulsebosch and De Laat (2011) note that
networking skills need to be developed over time in order to
make better use of the social environment . Employing
initiative, valuing others with whom you learn, sharing
responsibility and building relations or actively looking for
connections are not necessarily skills that people have by
nature. New skills have to be developed, by getting used to the
new networked way of thinking and working (Day & Hadfield,
2004).
Concluding, an important
aim of promoting networked learning is to provide individuals
with more professional autonomy by creating an open environment
in which people can connect to others to learn. We have seen
that a number of mechanisms that play a role here: freedom of
choice, commitment, responsibility, accountability, power,
control, trust, communicative openness and willingness to share
and reflect are all factors that contribute to the professional
autonomy of the individual, and to a collaborative atmosphere in
the organisation, and the success of networked learning
activities. We stipulate that aiming to integrate these informal
tendencies with the necessary formal requirements (see Table 2)
will create a situation with most value for all involved.
Table 2
Formal
and informal mechanisms regarding professional autonomy
|
Mechanisms |
|
|
'Informal' |
'Formal' |
|
Personal
choice
|
Rules |
|
Commitment
|
Accountability |
|
Personal
interest/development |
Performance
standards |
|
Personal
reflection |
Directives |
|
Communicative
openness |
Communicative
barriers |
|
Trust |
Control |
In what follows we outline
how networks and networked learning are related to management,
how networked learning is important, and what can be done to
promote it. We identify formal and informal mechanisms that are
of influence in the context of management and networked
learning.
4.3
Networked learning and management
Schools can be seen as
examples of ´open
practices´ (De Laat, Schreurs & Nijland, 2014), connecting
different parties and practices in an open and complex
environment as they are directly related with governments,
parents and families, companies and other collaborative
institutions (Darling-Hammond & Wei, 2009; Villegas-Reimers,
2003). The importance of networks for the organisation and the
way they are embedded within organisational structures have been
widely recognised (cf. Carmichael et al., 2006 ). Knowledge
developed in learning networks form a significant part of the
‘social capital’ of an organisation (Van Emmerik, Jawahar,
Schreurs & Cuyper, 2011), and learning networks build
capacity for change (Edwards, 2012). Since networked processes
comprise a large part of the learning in organisations, it
raises the question of how to manage the relations and knowledge
involved.
By relinquishing some
control, managers can provide a creative and productive network
environment where organisation members take part out of their
own interest, understanding the benefits of having a strong
professional network (Büchel & Raub, 2002). Leaders need to
‘let it happen’ while at the same time facilitating adequate
room for emerging networks and embedding network activities in
the organisation (Kubiak & Bertram, 2010). Leadership is not
only embedded in formal positions, but emerges from interactions
between people and activities that are performed (Scribner,
Sawyer, Watson & Myers, 2007). In a more open and
decentralised authority structure, leadership is less central
but distributed over the members in the networks of the
organisation (cf. Frost, 2008).
Büchel and Raub note the
importance of multi-directionality, each member or unit can
learn from all the others. Responsibility for success lies
within all the network members. Learning networks can be
designed for problem-solving and creating new knowledge,
generated by input from all participants. Although the
motivation of the participants is crucial in attaining success,
learning networks need to be supported by the management (Büchel
& Raub, 2002; Carmichael et al., 2006).
Promoting learning and
change entails that both formal processes and informal processes
are considered important and where possible brought into
agreement. When the formal and the informal organisation of a
school are in harmony, it increases the chance of successful
collaboration (Penuel et al. 2010). Managing responsibilities
and allocation of time and resources have found to be of
influence to perceptions of the social space on the work floor.
The “designed” and “lived” organisations are equally important
and influence each other mutually (Penuel et al., 2010).
In addition to promoting an
open culture of learning and exchange in general, organising
network activities or setting up networked learning communities
can be helpful to promote the exchange of knowledge (Moses,
Skinner, Hicks & O’Sullivan, 2009) and to create a more
distributed leadership where members of the organisation all can
contribute their expertise (Baumfield & Butterworth, 2005).
Holmes (2004) describes a networked learning project where
collective enquiry was the underlying mechanism that fuelled the
activity in the learning networks. In order to be successful, a
learning network needs a common purpose which benefits
individual needs, fruitful collaboration which promotes
commitment, purposeful and relevant network activities, a good
facilitator who has sound knowledge and expertise in the given
area, and funding (Varga-Atkins et al., 2010). Fostering
networked learning communities is most successful when
participants have shared goals, such as clearly defined aims and
activities, where a balance between short- and long-time goals
is important, observe Kubiak and Bertram (2010).
In order to promote
learning networks, it has shown to be important to respect the
natural bottom-up, self-governing culture of learning. Since
informal learning is often spontaneous and practice-driven, it
is not an easy task to combine this with the need for control
and performance of ‘above the waterline’: management and
employees have different roles and outlooks. As soon as the
management gets involved too much, learning networks risk losing
their sense of autonomy, the result of which can be loss of
motivation (Agterberg, 2012; Kubiak & Bertram, 2010).
For a network facilitator,
his or her task involves creatively working with whatever
emerges and take up the role of for example an inspirer, guide,
pr-manager or an investigator. In order to work with bottom-up
processes the facilitator has to develop a non-directive
attitude, and to investigate profoundly the needs and
expectations of the participants and use this information to
make suggestions for developing the network. Also, coaching
participants intensively in personal and communication skills
and online literacy can be part of the procedures. Furthermore
it can be necessary to promote networked learning as a
recognised strategy for professional development in order for it
to be understood and supported by supervisors and managers
(Hanraets et al. 2011)..
School principals are
important agents when it comes to implementing learning
networks. They can act as gate-keepers, facilitators or as
barriers (O’Brien et al., 2008). The way networks are promoted
and developed by leaders and co-leaders is highly influential
(Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar & Burke, 2009), while the way
networks develop can vary from network to network (Kubiak, 2009,
Kubiak & Bertram, 2010). Some may be more short-lived,
others become more mature and individuals and schools might opt
in or out according to their individual needs. Network leaders,
being aware of these particularities and developing appropriate
strategies, can prove vital for the healthy development of
learning networks (Fox, Haddock & Smith, 2007; Kubiak &
Bertram, 2010; Schechter, 2012; Varga-Atkins et al., 2010).
Hökkä and Eteläpelto (2013) conclude that because the management
is crucial in creating openness and the possibility for change,
leaders and managers themselves need to reflect on their own
identity, since they are the ones implementing strategic
decisions and then deal with the emotions of the personnel.
Concluding; regarding
networked learning and organisational leadership, we found a
number of mechanisms at play. Managerial acknowledgement of
informal networks, promoting networked learning, organisational
structure, a distributed leadership, open communication
patterns, and an organisational culture in favour of
collaboration and exchange, not only between direct colleagues
but also between different organisational layers, all contribute
to an environment that promotes a healthy learning culture that
is conducive to both formal learning procedures and informal
networked learning (see Table 3).
Table 3
Formal and informal
mechanisms regarding management
|
Mechanisms |
|
|
'Informal' |
'Formal' |
|
Recognition of
informal networks |
Recognition of
formal authority structures |
|
Shared
leadership |
Centralised
leadership |
|
Bottom-up
decision-making |
Top-down
decision-making |
|
Open
organisational structure |
Rigid
organisational structure |
|
Open
communication |
Closed
communication |
Learning and working
together in an inspiring environment is more likely to succeed
when the work floor and the management understand each other and
respect each others’ decisions. Networked learning facilitates
understanding and collaboration in respect to the content of
work practices, and also contributes to the formal and informal
organisational context.
5. Conclusion
and discussion
In this study we examined
underpinning mechanisms regarding networked learning and
professional development, autonomy, and management. We used the
perspective of networked learning in order to develop a better
conceptual understanding and to examine how this facilitates a
better alignment of informal and formal learning in
organisations.
Our key questions were:
·
What are formal and informal mechanisms
underlying networked professional learning related to
professional development, autonomy and management?
·
How can networked learning be positioned in the
most optimal way?
5.1
Formal and informal mechanisms underlying networked
professional learning
Concerning our first
question: we analysed the formal and informal mechanisms that we
found in each of the sections of the results (see Appendix 1)
and found three main groups of mechanisms at play:
Learning mechanisms: what
we have seen in the literature indicates that networked learning
is a natural activity through which professionals develop their
expertise, in addition to participating in formal learning
procedures. This form of professional development is a
continuous process. Networked learning is often directly related
to work practices and promoting it has proven to be effective to
enhance the learning process.
Mechanisms regarding
autonomy can be considered to be motivational: networked
learning provides individuals with the opportunity to connect to
others with the same interests, in this way opening up the
learning environment to learn what one deems necessary. Personal
learning and learning initiatives can be promoted through
networked learning. Issues of trust, freedom of choice, and
willingness to share and connect are intrinsically motivated
factors that play a role here. This can be contrasted with
pressure to perform, obligations to follow rules, and follow
strict regulations which, however necessary, creates an external
motivational force (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Organisational mechanisms:
if management acknowledges the value of informal networks,
professionals can be encouraged to make use of their informal
networks in order for the organisation to adapt to the always
changing environment. Through networks, organisational
structures become more flexible, and open communication can be
promoted. In an expansive rather than a restrictive
organisational environment, leadership can be seen as a process
where responsibilities are distributed and ‘bottom-up’
initiatives are encouraged. The management has an important role
in creating a conducive and collaborative learning environment
by providing opportunities for networked learning activities and
structuring the formal organisation accordingly
These three groups of
mechanisms can be brought together in the following framework
against the background of our ‘iceberg’ (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
(See pdf) Three groups of formal and informal mechanisms
related to networked learning in school organisations
5.2 How can
networked learning be positioned in the most optimal way?
Our second key question was: how can networked
learning be positioned in the most optimal way?
As we have argued in the
introduction, formal and informal learning procedures in teacher
professional development often not are integrated in a
satisfactory way. The core mechanisms depicted in the
formal-informal framework illustrate how networked learning can
be positioned so that formal learning procedures can be
augmented, complemented and informed by informal networked
learning. Already existing informal networks can be made visible
and then strengthened by giving them a place in the
organisation. For this to happen it is helpful for the networks
to develop a learning agenda that is visible to the management
(De Laat, 2012), and have support from the management (Büchel
and Raub, 2002). For members of networks to be motivated,
autonomy, trust and efficacy are important factors in order for
networks to be effective (cf. Van den Beemt, Ketelaar &
Diepstraten, 2014). Networking skills need to be developed by
both the participants in learning networks and by the management
of school organisations in order for networked learning to be
most effective. Formal regulations and standards are a
professional reality, but school leaders, in addition to judging
teachers’ performance through accountability practices, can
strive to create an open organisational culture where
responsibilities are shared, encourage participation, and
promote looking for new ideas outside of the direct working
environment in order to create an environment where formal study
and informal learning can both have their place. Recognising
both parts of the ‘iceberg’ by understanding the mechanisms at
play is helpful in order to understand how to balance and
integrate both positions so that professionalism can prosper.
5.3 Discussion
Research in this area
raises questions about how, what, why, and when teachers learn.
Currently we do not know much about the way the different
mechanisms that we found in this study influence each other,
which, in our view, merits further investigation. Developing a
‘social awareness’ of learning processes (Boud & Hager,
2012) can help to develop new metaphors for professional
development (cf. De Laat, Schreurs & Nijland, 2013) and open
up new avenues of practice and research. Findings from this
study can be used to advance the theoretical understanding about
the alignment of informal and formal professional development
(cf. Evers et al., 2011; McGuire & Gubbins, 2010) and
develop an instrument to engage school leaders and teachers in a
constructive dialogue, and collect further data.
Our study has its
limitations. By focusing on the interplay of formal and informal
processes, we have provided a far from exhaustive overview of
the findings in each of the chosen fields related to the
subject. However,
combining the insights from different areas of research in order
to come to a shared framework there is scientific relevance to
our study and our findings can be further conceptualised and
validated.
We would like to add to
this the observation that there might not be one specific
‘optimal situation’ for (networked) professional development to
be effective; different people have different needs and views.
Organisations can be seen as a ‘complex responsive process’ with
many unexpected complexities and local realities, and only
one-third of change efforts to improve quality in organisations
are considered successful (Pieterse, Caniëls & Homan, 2012).
We believe that this is where making use of networks can be
helpful: to provide open space for communication and learning,
where individual differences can exist and prosper.
Openness, exchange, trust,
and communication are relevant to both school leaders and
teachers. Promoting openness and development in the light of
performance pressure, market-oriented reforms, and centrally
imposed standards is no easy task. However, to be in control can
sometimes mean, within limits, letting go of control. Networks
flourish by a healthy balance between formalities and
informalities. Striking this balance can be achieved by aiming
both at facts and figures and at shared values and meaning.
Keypoints
Acknowledgements
This
paper has been supported by SKOEM, the Netherlands.
References
Agterberg, L. C. M. (2012).
Walking a Tightrope: the
dynamics of coordinating intra-organizational networks of practice (Doctoral
dissertation).VU, Amsterdam.
Akkerman, S., Petter, C.,
& Laat, M. De. (2008). Organising communities-of-practice:
facilitating emergence. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 20(6), 383–399. doi:
10.1108/13665620810892067
Angelides, P., Georgiou,
R., & Kyriakou, K. (2008). The implementation of a
collaborative action research programme for developing inclusive
practices: social learning in small internal networks. Educational Action
Research,
16(4), 557–568. doi: 10.1080/09650790802445742
Appleby,
Y., & Hillier, Y. (2012). Exploring practice–research
networks for critical professional learning. Studies
in Continuing
Education, 34(1), 31-43. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2011.613374
Attard, K.
(2012). Public reflection within learning communities: an
incessant type of professional development.European Journal
of Teacher Education, 35(2), 199-211. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.643397
Baker‐Doyle, K. J., &
Yoon, S. a. (2011). In search of practitioner‐based social capital: a
social network analysis tool for
understanding and facilitating teacher collaboration in a US‐based STEM professional
development
program. Professional
Development in Education, 37(1), 75–93. doi:
10.1080/19415257.2010.494450
Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2006).
Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice? A
discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms. Educational
Action Research, 14(3), 395–405
doi:10.1080/09650790600847735
Bass, B. M. (1991). From
transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3),
19-31. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Baumfield, V., &
Butterworth, M. (2005). Developing and sustaining professional
dialogue about teaching and learning in schools. Journal of
in-service education, 31(2), 297-312. doi:10.1080/13674580500200280
Beckett, L. (2012). “Trust
the teachers, Mother!”: The Leading Learning project in Leeds. Improving Schools, 15(1), 10–22. doi:
10.1177/1365480211433723
Berry, J. (2012). An investigation into
teachers’ professional autonomy in England: implications for
policy and practice.
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the
degree of PhD. University of Hertfordshire.
Bessant, J., Alexander, A., Tsekouras, G., Rush, H., &
Lamming, R. (2012). Developing innovation capability through
learning networks. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(5),
1087-1112. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbs026
Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices:
conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal
of workplace
learning, 16(6), 312-324. doi:
10.1108/13665620410550295
Binz-Scharf, M. C., Lazer,
D., & Mergel, I. (2011). Searching for Answers: Networks of
Practice Among Public Administrators. The American Review of
Public Administration, 42(2), 202–225. doi:
10.1177/0275074011398956
Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). Re-thinking continuing
professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional
practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1),
17-30. doi:
10.1080/0158037X.2011.608656
Brown, J, Collins, A; Duguid P
(1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher,
Vol.18, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 1989), pp. 32-42. doi:
10.3102/0013189X018001032
Büchel, B., and Raub, S. (2002).
Building knowledge-creating value networks. European Management Journal, 20(6), 587-596. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00110-X
Carmichael, P., Fox, A., McCormick, R., Procter,
R., & Honour, L. (2006). Teachers’ networks in and out of
school. Research Papers in Education, 21(2),
217–234. doi: 10.1080/02671520600615729
Clus, Le, M. (2011). Informal learning in
the workplace: A review of the literature. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning,
51(2) 355-373.
Cross, J (2007). Informal learning,
rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation
and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Bolivar, J.
M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: the role of
teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational
Administration, 48(3), 359–391. doi:
10.1108/09578231011041062
Day, C., & Hadfield, M. (2004). Learning
through networks: trust, partnerships and the power of action
research.Educational
Action Research, 12(4), 575–586. doi:
10.1080/09650790400200269
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei,
R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in
the learning profession. Washington, DC: National
Staff Development Council.
De Caluwe, L., &
Vermaak, H. (2003). Learning to change: A guide for
organization change agents. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
De Laat, M. (2012). Enabling
professional development networks: How connected are you?
Inaugural address. Heerlen,Open Universteit.
De Laat, M.F., Schreurs,
B., & Nijland, F. (2014). Communities of practice and
Value Creation in networks. In. R.F.Poell, T. Rocco, &
G. Roth. (Eds.). The Routledge Companion to Human Resource
Development. New York:
Routledge.
Earl, L.,
& Katz, S. (2007). Leadership in networked learning
communities: defining the terrain. School Leadership &
Management, 27(3), 239–258. doi: 10.1080/13632430701379503
Edwards, F. (2012). Learning communities for
curriculum change: key factors in an educational change
process in New Zealand. Professional development in education,
38(1), 25-47. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2011.592077
Emmerik, H. Van, Jawahar, I. M., Schreurs, B.,
& Cuyper, N. De. (2011). Social capital, team efficacy and
team potency: The
mediating role of team learning behaviors. Career
Development International, 16(1), 82–99.
doi: 10.1108/13620431111107829
Eraut, M.
(2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in
continuing education, 26(2), 247-273. doi:
10.1080/158037042000225245
Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., Van der Heijden,
B. I., & Gerrichhauzen, J. T. (2011). An organizational and
task perspective model aimed at enhancing teachers’ professional
development and occupational expertise. Human Resource
Development Review, 10(2), 151-179. 10.1177/1534484310397852
Forrester, G. (2000). Professional autonomy versus managerial
control: The experience
of teachers in an english primary school. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(2), 133–151. doi:
10.1080/09620210000200056
Fox, A., Haddock, J., & Smith, T. (2007). A
network biography: reflecting on a journey from birth to
maturity of a
networked learning community1. Curriculum Journal,
18(3), 287–306. doi: 10.1080/09585170701589918
Fuller, A.,
& Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the
contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and
restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work,
16(4), 407-426. doi:
10.1080/1363908032000093012
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Groot, N., & Homan, T.
H. (2012). Strategising
as a complex responsive leadership process. International
Journal of Learning and Change, 6(3/4), 156. doi:
10.1504/IJLC.2012.050858
Hargreaves,
E., Berry, R., Lai, Y. C., Leung, P., Scott, D., &
Stobart, G. (2013). Teachers’ experiences of autonomy in
Continuing Professional Development: Teacher Learning
Communities in London and Hong Kong. Teacher
Development 17(1), 19-34 doi:
10.1080/13664530.2012.748686
Hargreaves, A., &
Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming
teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hodgson, V., de Laat, M.,
McConnell, D., Ryberg, Th. (Eds.) (2014) The Design, Experience
and Practice of Networked
Learning. New York: Springer
Hodkinson, H.,
and Hodkinson, P. (2005). Improving schoolteachers' workplace
learning. Research
papers in education, 20(2), 109-131. doi: 10.1080/02671520500077921
Holmes, D.
(2004). Nuts, bolts, levers and cranks: designing
enquiry-based learning in Hartlepool. Improving Schools, 7(2),
121–128. doi: 10.1177/1365480204047344
Hökkä, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2013). Seeking New
Perspectives on the Development of Teacher Education: A Study
of the Finnish Context.
Journal of Teacher
Education, 65(1), 39–52. doi: 10.1177/0022487113504220
Hulsbos, F., Anderson, I., Kessels, J., & Wassink, H.
(2012). Professionele
ruimte en gespreid leiderschap [Professional autonomy
and distributed leadership]. LOOK Report 37, Open
University, the Netherlands.
Imants, J., Wubbels, T., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013).
Teachers’ Enactments of Workplace Conditions and Their Beliefs
and Attitudes toward Reform. Vocations and Learning, 6(3),
323–346. doi: 10.1007/s12186-013-9098-0
Jones, J. (2006) Leadership
in small schools: supporting the power of collaboration. Management
in Education 20(2)
24-28. doi: 10.1177/089202060602000207
Kubiak, C. (2009). Working the Interface:
Brokerage and Learning Networks. Educational Management
Administration &
Leadership, 37(2), 239–256. doi:
10.1177/1741143208100300
Kubiak, C., & Bertram, J. (2010).
Facilitating the development of school-based learning
networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1),
31–47. doi: 10.1108/09578231011015403
Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning
communities shaping the future of teacher development. Journal
of teacher education,
51(3), 221-227. doi: 10.1177/0022487100051003010
McCormick, R. (2010). The state of the nation in
CPD: a literature review. Curriculum Journal, 21(4),
395–412. doi:
10.1080/09585176.2010.529643
McGuire, D., & Gubbins, C. (2010). The slow
death of formal learning: A polemic. Human Resource
Development Review,
9(3), 249-265. 10.1177/1534484310371444
Moses, A. S., Skinner, D. H., Hicks, E., &
O’Sullivan, P. S. (2009). Developing an educator network: the
effect of a teaching
scholars program in the health professions on networking and
productivity. Teaching and Learning in Medicine,
21(3), 175–9. doi: 10.1080/10401330903014095
O’Brien, M., Varga-Atkins,
T., Burton, D., Campbell, A., & Qualter, A. (2008). How are
the Perceptions of Learning Networks
Shaped Among School Professionals and Headteachers at an Early
Stage in their Introduction?
International
Review of Education, 54(2), 211–242. doi:
10.1007/s11159-008-9084-1
Pahor, M., Škerlavaj, M.,
& Dimovski, V. (2008). Evidence for the Network Perspective
on Organizational Learning, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1985–1994.
doi:
10.1002/asi
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M.,
Joshi, a., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. a. (2010).
The Alignment of the Informal and
Formal Organizational Supports for Reform: Implications
for Improving Teaching in Schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57–95. doi:
10.1177/1094670509353180
Penuel, W., Riel, M.,
Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers'
professional interactions in a school as social capital: A
social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111(1),
124-163.
Pieterse, J. H., Caniëls,
M. C., & Homan, T. (2012). Professional discourses and
resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 25(6), 798-818. doi:
10.1108/09534811211280573
Poell, R. F. & Van Der Krogt F.J. (2013). The Role of Human
Resource Development in Organizational Change : Professional Development
Strategies of Employees, Managers and HRD Practitioners, 1–20.
Chapter to be
published in International Handbook of Research in
Professional and Practice-Based Learning. S. Billett, C.Gruber
(eds.). Dordrecht: Springer (in press)
Price, D. (2013). Open: How we’ll work,
live and learn in the future. Kindle Edition.
Pugh, K. and Prusak, L. (2013). Designing Effective
Knowledge Networks. Retrieved October, 24, 2013, from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/designing-effective-knowledge-networks/.
Ryan, J.,
Kang, C., Mitchell, I., & Erickson, G. (2009). China's basic
education reform: an account of an international collaborative
research and development project. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 29(4), 427-441. doi:
10.1080/02188790903308902
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.
L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
psychologist, 55(1), 68. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R.
K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher Teams and
Distributed Leadership: A Study of Group Discourse and
Collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67–100. doi:
10.1177/0013161X06293631
Schultz, K. (2011). Beginning with the
Particular: Reimagining Professional Development as a Feminist
Practice. The New Educator, 7(3), 287–302.
doi: 10.1080/1547688X.2011.593997
Seezink, A., Poell, R.,
& Kirschner, P. (2010). SOAP in practice: learning outcomes
of a cross‐institutional innovation project conducted by
teachers, student teachers, and teacher educators. European Journal of
Teacher
Education, 33(3), 229–243. doi:
10.1080/02619768.2010.490911
Schechter, C. (2012). The professional learning community as
perceived by Israeli school superintendents, principals and
teachers. International Review of Education, 58(6),
717-734. doi: 10.1007/s11159-012-9327-z
Siemens G., (2004) Connectivism: a learning
theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Snowden, D. (2005). From atomism to networks in social systems.
The Learning Organization,
12(6), 552–562.
doi:
10.1108/09696470510626757
Spillane, J. P. (2005, June). Distributed leadership. In The
Educational Forum (Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 143-150). Taylor
& Francis Group. doi: 10.1080/00131720508984678
Supovitz, J., Sirinides,
P., & May, H. (2009). How Principals and Peers Influence
Teaching and Learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. doi:
10.1177/1094670509353043
Trotman, D. (2009).
Networking for educational change: concepts, impediments and
opportunities for primary school professional learning
communities. Professional
Development in Education, 35(3), 341–356. doi:
10.1080/13674580802596626
Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: a
literature review. Vocations and learning, 6(1),
11-36. doi:
10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z
Varga-Atkins, T., O’Brien,
M., Burton, D., Campbell, A., & Qualter, A. (2009). The
importance of interplay between school-based
and networked professional development: School professionals’
experiences of inter-school
collaborations in learning networks. Journal of Educational
Change, 11(3), 241–272. doi: 10.1007/s10833-
009-9127-9
Van den Beemt, A., Ketelaar, E., &
Diepstraten, I. (2014). Reciprocity
in knowledge networks. Paper presented at the 2014
Networked Learning Conference, Edinburgh, UK.
Villegas-Reimers, E.
(2003). Teacher professional development: an international
review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for
Educational Planning.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M.
(2002). Cultivating
Communities of Practice. Boston, MASS: Harvard Business
School Press.