Student teachers’ and in-service teachers’ peer learning: a realist synthesis

Figures & data

Table 1. The hypotheses to be tested in the realist synthesis.

#	Hypothesis	Number of data-sets that addressed the hypothesis	Literature used to phrase the hypothesis
	Mechanisms of the PTL activities
1	PTL activities become more effective when they show a gain in subject matter and/or pedagogical content knowledge	27	Capps et al. (2012). Desimone (2009), Van Veen et al. (2012)
2	PTL activities become more effective when they encompass active learning activities, such as observing or analysing, rather than passive activities, such as listening	17	Desimone (2009), Lauer, Christopher, Firpo-Triplett, and Buchting (2014), Van Veen et al. (2012)
3	PTL activities become more effective when they have a reflection component	18	Ackland (1991), Capps et al. (2012)
4	PTL activities become more effective when they have a feedback component	9	Ackland (1991)
5	PTL activities become more effective when they apply video fragments of teaching	9	Borko, Koellner, and Jacobs (2011), Brophy (2003)
6	PTL activities become more effective when they are guided by a facilitator or group leader	17	Ackland (1991), Borko et al. (2011), Lauer et al. (2014), Van Veen et al. (2012)
7	PTL activities become more effective when they have a longer rather than shorter duration and follow-ups.	13	Desimone (2009), Lauer et al. (2014), Van Veen et al. (2012)
	Contexts influencing PTL activities
8	PTL activities become more effective when personal factors, such as motivation and beliefs, are taken into account.	39	Desimone (2009), Evers, Kreijns, Van der Heijden, & Gerrichhauzen (2011)
9	PTL activities become more effective when interpersonal factors, such as trust and respect, are taken into account.	36	Capps et al. (2012), Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005), Van Gennip et al. (2009)
10	PTL activities become more effective when contextual factors, such as support from school leaders and ICT, are taken into account.	22	Avalos (2011), Van Veen et al. (2012)

Table 2. Overview of findings of the hypotheses separately for the six settings.

	Coaching PTL		Collaborative PTL		Assessment PTL
Hypotheses	Student teachers	In-service teachers	Student teachers	In-service teachers	Student teachers	In-service teachers
Mechanisms of the PTL activities
Hypothesis 1	++	++	++	++	+	?
Self-knowledge: recognising strengths and weaknesses, area for improvement	+	?	+	?	+	?
Applying the newly gained knowledge	+	+	?	+	?	?
Hypothesis 2	+	++	++	++	?	?
Reduced feelings of isolation	?	?	+	+	?	?
Hypothesis 3	++	+	+	++	+	?
Hypothesis 4	++	++	+	+	+	?
Hypothesis 5	++	+	++	?	?	?
Technical issues with using video(camera)	+	+	+	?	?	?
Hypothesis 6	?	?	++	++	–	?
Style of coaching	+	++	?	?	?	?
Hypothesis 7	+	+	++	++	+	?
Follow-ups	?	?	?	?	?	?
Contexts influencing PTL activities
Hypothesis 8
Motivation/engagement	+	++	++	++	+	?
Prior knowledge and skills	+	+	++	++	?	?
Behaviour	+	?	++	+	?	?
Expectations	?	+	+	+	?	?
Perceptions	+	+	+	+	+	?
Individual characteristics	?	?	+	?	?	?
Beliefs	?	++	+	++	?	?
Hypothesis 9
Trust	++	+	++	++	?	?
Communication	+	+	++	++	?	?
Collaboration skills	?	?	++	++	?	?
Hypothesis 10
Support from environment	+	+	?	+	?	?
ICT	++	+	++	+	?	?
Training	+	?	?	+	+	?
Policy	?	?	+	+	?	?

Note: + = there were clues of evidence; ++ = evidence was clear; ? = there were no findings supporting the hypotheses; – = clues of evidence rejected hypothesis.

Table 3. Context-mechanisms-outcomes configurations.

For developers of interventions	For school management and teacher educators	For teachers and student teachers
Content and activities
Implement active participation through, e.g., discussions, visiting classrooms, and brainstorming	Implement active participation through, e.g., discussions, visiting classrooms, and brainstorming	Be prepared to actively participate and to try out new teaching methods within your classroom that suit your interests
Focus on content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, or teaching skills that have or meet teachers’ interests	Focus on content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge or teaching skills that have or meet teachers’ interests
Combine activities wherein participants develop new knowledge or teaching skills with the application in their classrooms (for teachers) and their field experience (for student teachers)	Combine activities wherein participants develop new knowledge or teaching skills with the application in their classrooms (for teachers) and their field experience (for student teachers)
Support participants in developing ideas for implementation of knowledge	Support participants in developing ideas for implementation of knowledge
Facilitate the application of new knowledge through experimentation	Facilitate the application of new knowledge through experimentation
	Support student teachers to develop self-knowledge about their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
Pre-condition: time
	Make sure participants know that they need to invest time for participating in PTL activities and to achieve outcomes	Be prepared and willing to invest time
	Create time, so that participants can simultaneously work together Create interventions that last at least one school year
Pre-condition: video/ICT
When using technological applications, make sure that these are operable and that participants can use these applications	When using technological applications, make sure that these are operable and that participants can use these applications	If you use any technological application, be prepared to learn to deal with it.
Provide training and/or constant support on participants’ skills in using technological applications	Provide training and/or constant support on participants’ skills in using technological applications
Realise that video is a powerful tool	Realise that video is a powerful tool	Realise that video is a powerful tool
	When using video recordings, train participants in installing and using equipment	When using video recordings, train yourself to use the equipment (if applicable)
		Using video recordings may seem threatening but is a powerful tool Respect your colleagues who open up their classrooms by showing videos; if you are showing videos, try to prevent being hesitant: Using it more often helps
Pre-condition: training
Provide participants with training on necessary skills	Provide participants with training on necessary skills	Ask for training if you feel you need training to successfully participate
Pre-condition: support
	School management and teacher educators should provide support, in terms of necessary resources as well as social support	Ask your school leader or teacher educator for the needed support
Personal
Align interventions with participants’ beliefs	If participants’ beliefs do not cohere with the intervention, do not expect to yield intended outcomes	Select to participate in activities that cohere with your beliefs about teaching
	Be aware of and articulate participants’ beliefs	Behave pro-actively, communicate your expectations and perceptions especially if these clash with the intervention
Align interventions with participants’ prior knowledge and experiences	Be aware of participants’ behaviour, expectations, perceptions, and characters. As a facilitator, coach, or group member signal and discuss hindering behaviour, expectations, perceptions, and characters	Choose to participate in interventions that build on your knowledge and experiences
Working together
	When using online collaboration or coaching, be aware of its reliance on written text and the lack of non-verbal behaviour. Knowing the group members beforehand and/or organising face-to-face meetings might be necessary	When using online collaboration or coaching, be aware of its reliance on written text and the lack of non-verbal behaviour
		Get to know your co-participants
	Build trust between participants	Build trust and be trustworthy
	Communicate and monitor work processes	Communicate and monitor work processes
	Work on collaborative skills, especially in collaborative activities	Work on collaborative skills, especially in collaborative activities
	Formulate a shared goal, especially in collaborative activities	Formulate a shared goal, especially in collaborative activities
Facilitator
	Add a facilitator to collaborative groups, who introduces new ideas to the group and encourages active participation
	Work on coaching skills, through employing skilled coaches or training participants	Work on your coaching skills
Feedback during activities
Develop tasks or activities that elicit providing feedback		When you are providing feedback, try to be constructive in your remarks
Organise feedback moments, for example, using videos	Organise feedback moments, for example, using videos	When you are receiving feedback, ask the provider(s) to be as constructive as possible
Support participants’ competence in providing constructive feedback	Support participants’ competence in providing constructive feedback
Reflection during and after activities
Organise reflection moments, wherein participants discuss their reflections	Organise reflection moments, wherein participants discuss their reflections	Reflect on your experiences within the PTL activity and be prepared to share these with your co-participants
Elicit reflection, for instance, by visiting each other’s classrooms or by organising feedback moments	Elicit reflection, for instance, by visiting each other’s classrooms or by organising feedback moments

Appendix 1. Overview of studies

Study	Country	Participants	PTL activity	General type of study	Links to hypotheses	Instrument^a
Amhag and Jacobson (2009)	Sweden	5 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	7	Observations (qual)
Amobi (2005)	USA	31 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	5 9	Reflection report (qual) Reflection report (qual)
An, Kim, and Kim (2008)	USA	24 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	6 7 9 10	Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
Arvaja (2007)	Finland	6 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8	Observations (qual)
Baran and Cagiltay (2010)	Turkey	28 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	5 8 9	Reflection report (qual) Reflection report (qual) Reflection report (qual)
Biasutti (2011)	Italy	92 in-service teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 3 6 9	Survey (quant + qual) Survey (quant + qual) Survey (qual) Survey (quant + qual)
Borko et al. (1997)	USA	14 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 6 7 10	Field notes (qual) Field notes (qual) Interviews (qual) Field notes (qual) + interviews (qual)
Bower et al. (2011)	Australia	22 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 5 9 10	Survey (quant + qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
Britton and Anderson (2010)	USA	4 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	10	Interviews (qual) and reflection report (qual)
Buchanan (2011), Buchanan and Stern (2012)	Australia	5 student teachers	assessment	qualitative	1 3 4 6 7 8	Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual) Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual) Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual) Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual) Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual) Survey (qual) and focus groups (qual)
Burron et al. (1993)	USA	24 student teachers, 27 in control group	collaboration	quantitative	1 2 9	Questionnaire (quant) Observations (quant) Questionnaire (quant) and observations (quant)
Christ, Arya, and Chiu (2012)	USA	14 in-service teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 8	Observations (qual) Observations (quantified qual)
Clarke (2009)	United Arab Emirates	unknown number of student teachers^b	collaboration	qualitative	6 9	Observations (qual) Observations (qual)
Donnelly (2005)	USA	18 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	3 8	Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
El-Deghaidy and Nouby (2008)	Egypt	14 student teachers; 12 in control	collaboration	mixed methods	8	Survey (quant) and focus groups (qual)
Engelen and Bergen (2002)	Netherlands	37 in-service teachers	coaching	mixed methods	2 6	Survey (quant) and observations (qual) Observations (qual)
Estebaranz et al. (1999)	Spain	616 in-service teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 7 9	Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual)
Eteläpelto et al. (2005)	Finland	9 student teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 6 8 9	Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
Forbes (2004)	USA	3 in-service teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10	Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (qual), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual)
Fransen et al. (2011)	Netherlands	104 student teachers	collaboration	quantitative	6 9	Focus group (qual) Survey (quant) and focus group (qual)
Fry and Hin (2006)	Singapore	21 student teachers	coaching	mixed methods	4	Survey (quant)
Goos and Bennison (2008)	Australia	19 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	6 9	Observations (qual) Interviews (qual)
Grion and Varisco (2007)	Italy	19 student teachers; 18 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8	Observations (qual)
Hamilton (2013)	USA	28 in-service teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 3 8 9	Survey (quant and qual) and interviews (qual) Survey (quant and qual) and interviews (qual) Survey (quant and qual) and interviews (qual) Survey (quant and qual) and interviews (qual)
Hanewald and Gesthuizen (2009)	Australia	33 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 2 7 8 9	Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
Harford and MacRuairc (2008)	Ireland	20 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 2 3 5 7 8 10	Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual) Focus group (qual)
Harrington and Hathaway (1994) Harrington and Quinn-Leering (1996)	USA	53 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	3 8	Observations (qual) Observations (qual)
Helleve (2007)	Norway	5 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	6 8 9	Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual)
Hew and Hara (2007)	unclear	20 in-service teachers	collaboration	mixed methods^c	7 8 9 10	Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual)
Howard, Barrett, and Frick (2010)	USA	35 student teachers; 37 in control	coaching	qualitative	8	Observations (quantified qual)
Huang et al. (2011)	USA	28 student teachers, 37 in control group	collaboration	qualitative	6 8 9	Observations (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual)
Hurme et al. (2009)	Finland	6 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8 9	Observations (qual) Observations (qual) and survey (qual)
Järvenoja and Järvelä (2009)	probably Finland	63 student teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	8 9	Survey (quant) Survey (quant)
Jenkins et al. (2005)	USA	37 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 2 3	Logbook (qual) and peer coaching form (qual) Logbook (qual) and peer coaching form (qual) Logbook (qual) and peer coaching form (qual)
Jenkins and Veal (2002)	probably USA	8 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 2 3 9 10	Observations (qual) Observations (qual) Observations (qual) Logbooks (qual) Observations (qual)
Koc (2011)	Turkey	97 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	2 5	Reflection report (qual) Reflection report (qual)
Lamb et al. (2013)	England	23 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 3 5 6 8 9	Survey (qual) Observations (qual), survey (qual), and interviews (qual) Survey (qual) Observations (qual), survey (qual), and interviews (qual) Observations (qual), survey (qual), and interviews (qual) Observations (qual), survey (qual), and interviews (qual)
Lee and Baek (2012)	probably USA	18 student teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 3	Observations (quantified qual) Observations (quantified qual)
Lockhorst et al. (2010)	Netherlands	41 student teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	2 3 4 10	Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) Observations (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual)
Main (2012)	Australia	24 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8 9 10	Observations (qual), interviews (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Observations (qual), interviews (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Observations (qual), interviews (qual), and reflection reports (qual)
Mallette et al. (1999)	USA	6 student teachers	coaching	quantitative	2 10	Observations (quant) Observations (quant)
Manouchehri (2001)	USA	4 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 3 4 6 8 9	Observations (qual) Observations (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual) and interviews (qual) Observations (qual, interpretations)
Matthew et al. (2009)	USA	37 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 2 3 7 8 10	Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual), reflection reports (qual), and observations (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual)
Meirink (2007), Meirink et al. (2010), Meirink et al. (2007), Meirink et al. (2009)	Netherlands	34 in-service teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	1 2 3 8 10	Logbooks (qual) and observations (qual) Logbooks (qual) and observations (qual) Logbooks (qual) Logbooks (qual), observations (qual), and survey (quant) Survey (quant)
Nicholas and Ng (2009)	Australia	77 student teachers	collaboration	mixed methods	8 9 10	Survey (quant) Survey (quant) and interviews (qual) Survey (qual)
Oh and Jonassen (2007)	USA	21 student teachers in first condition, 18 in second condition, 19 in control group	collaboration	mixed methods	8	Observations (qual) and achievement test (qual)
Pachler and Daly (2006)	UK	8 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8 9	Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual)
Prestridge (2009)	Australia	16 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	2 8 9	Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual)
Ritchie and Peters (2001)	New Zealand	57 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	3 6 8 9	Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual) and observations (qual) Survey (quant and qual) and observations (qual)
Rock and Wilson (2005)	USA	6 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 2 10	Field notes (qual), interviews (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual) Interviews (qual) and reflection reports (qual)
Ross (1996)	USA	15 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8 9	Ranking skills (quantified qual) and observations (quantified qual) Ranking skills (quantified qual) and observations (quantified qual)
Roychoudhury and Roth (1992)	USA	54 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 9	Observations (qual), field notes (qual), and student reports (qual) Observations (qual), field notes (qual), and student reports (qual)
Ruan and Beach (2005)	USA	21 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	8 9 10	Survey (qual) Survey (qual) Survey (qual)
Schuck (2003)	Australia	150 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	1 2 8 9 10	Reflection reports (qual) Reflection reports (qual) Reflection reports (qual) Reflection reports (qual) Reflection reports (qual)
Shin et al. (2007) Wilkins et al. (2009)	USA	56 student teachers	coaching	mixed methods	4 7 8 9	Survey (quant) and interviews (qual) Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual) Survey (quant and qual) and interviews (qual)
Shriki and Movshovitz-Hadar (2011)	Israel	11 in-service teachers	collaboration	qualitative	2 8 9 10	Observations (qual), interviews (qual), survey (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Observations (qual), interviews (qual), survey (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Observations (qual), interviews (qual), survey (qual), and reflection reports (qual) Observations (qual), interviews (qual), survey (qual), and reflection reports (qual)
Sluijsmans et al. (2004)	Netherlands	50 student teachers; 43 in control group	assessment	quantitative	8 10	Survey (quant) and interviews (qual) Interviews (qual)
So (2012)	Hong Kong	25 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	4 5 8	Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Observations (qual)
So et al. (2008)	Hong Kong	3 student teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 5 9 10	Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual) Interviews (qual)
Thijs and Van den Berg (2002)	Botswana	120 in-service teachers	coaching	mixed methods	1 8 10	Survey (quant) and interview (qual) Survey (quant) and interview (qual) Survey (quant) and interview (qual)
Vincent and Jones (2008)	Australia	14 in-service teachers	coaching	qualitative	6	Observed (qual; interpretations)
Wade and Fauske (2004)	USA	29 student teachers	collaboration	qualitative	8 9	Observed (qual) Observed (qual)
Zwart et al. (2008)	Netherlands	8 in-service teachers	coaching	qualitative	1 2 3 4	Survey (quant), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Survey (quant), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual) Logbooks (qual) Survey (quant), interviews (qual), and logbooks (qual)

Notes: ^aqual = qualitative; quant = quantitative. ^bClarke (2009) analysed 750 online messages, but it was not mentioned how many student teachers posted these messages. ^cHew and Hara (2007) applied a mixed-method design; but only the qualitative measures were relevant for this study.

Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2

 Google Scholar

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Veen, K., Zwart, R., & Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy & K. Van Veen (Eds.), Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Lauer, P. A., Christopher, D. E., Firpo-Triplett, R., & Buchting, F. (2014). The impact of short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the literature. Professional Development in Education, 40(2), 207–227. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2013.776619

 Google Scholar

Ackland, R. (1991). A review of the peer coaching literature. Journal of Staff Development, 12(1), 22–27.

 Google Scholar

Borko, H., Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2011). Meeting the challenges of scale: The importance of preparing professional development leaders. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org (ID Number: 16358)

 Google Scholar

Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2003). Using video in teacher education (Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 10). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

 Google Scholar

Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Gerrichhauzen, J. T. G. (2011). An organizational and task perspective model aimed at enhancing teachers’ professional development and occupational expertise. Human Resource Development Review, 10(2), 151–179. doi: 10.1177/1534484310397852

 Google Scholar

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Amhag, L., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Collaborative learning as a collective competence when students use the potential of meaning in asynchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 52(3), 656–667. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115–130.

 Google Scholar

*An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1), 65–83. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/volume-8/issue-1-08/general/teacher-perspectives-on-online-collaborative-learning-factors-perceived-as-facilitating-and-impeding-successful-online-group-work

 Google Scholar

*Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 133–158. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9013-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The dynamics of online communities in the activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 155–166.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1865–1875. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259–278. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00024-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bower, M., Cavanagh, M., Moloney, R., & Dao, M. (2011). Developing communication competence using an online Video Reflection system: Pre-service teachers’ experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 311–326. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.614685

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Britton, L. R., & Anderson, K. A. (2010). Peer coaching and pre-service teachers: Examining an underutilised concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 306–314. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Buchanan, M. T. (2011). Peer reviewing preservice teachers of Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 10(5), 464–481. doi: 10.1080/15363759.2010.515455

 Google Scholar

*Buchanan, M. T., & Stern, J. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of peer review. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(1), 37–49. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2012.643654

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Burron, B., James, M. L., & Ambrosio, A. L. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning in a physical science course for elementary/middle level preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 697–707. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300708

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2012). Collaborative peer video analysis: Insights about literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 171–199. doi: 10.1177/1086296X12440429

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Clarke, M. (2009). The discursive construction of interpersonal relations in an online community of practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2333–2344. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.04.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Donnelly, A. M. (2005). Let me show you my portfolio! Demonstrating competence through peer interviews. Action in Teacher Education, 27(3), 55–63. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2005.10463390

 Google Scholar

*El-Deghaidy, H., & Nouby, A. (2008). Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Computers & Education, 51(3), 988–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Engelen, A., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2002). Op zoek naar factoren die van coaching een krachtige leeromgeving voor docenten maken [Indicators of successful peer coaching in powerful learning environments]. Pedagogische Studiën, 79(4), 305–321.

 Google Scholar

*Estebaranz, A., Mingorance, P., & Marcelo, C. (1999). Teachers’ work groups as professional development: What do the teachers learn? Teachers and Teaching, 5(2), 153–169. doi: 10.1080/1354060990050202

 Google Scholar

*Eteläpelto, A., Littleton, K., Lahti, J., & Wirtanen, S. (2005). Students’ accounts of their participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 183–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.011

 Google Scholar

*Forbes, C. T. (2004). Peer mentoring in the development of beginning secondary science teachers: Three case studies. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(2), 219–239. doi: 10.1080/1361126042000239956

 Google Scholar

*Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Fry, J. M., & Hin, M. K. T. (2006). Peer coaching with interactive wireless technology between student teachers: Satisfaction with role and communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 193–204. doi: 10.1080/10494820600852969

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Goos, M. E., & Bennison, A. (2008). Developing a communal identity as beginning teachers of mathematics: Emergence of an online community of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(1), 41–60. doi: 10.1007/s10857-007-9061-9

 Google Scholar

*Grion, V., & Varisco, B. M. (2007). On line collaboration for building a teacher professional identity. PsychNology Journal, 5(3), 271–284.

 Google Scholar

*Hamilton, E. R. (2013). His ideas are in my head: Peer-to-peer teacher observations as professional development. Professional Development in Education, 39(1), 42–64. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2012.726202

 Google Scholar

*Hanewald, R., & Gesthuizen, R. (2009). Sustainability in an online community of practice: The case study of a group of secondary school educators in Victoria. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(5), 26–42. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2009v34n5.3

 Google Scholar

*Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884–1892. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Harrington, H. L., & Hathaway, R. S. (1994). Computer conferencing, critical reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 543–554. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(94)90005-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Harrington, H. L., & Quinn-Leering, K. (1996). Considering teaching’s consequences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 591–607. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00007-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Helleve, I. (2007). In an ICT-based teacher-education context: Why was our group “the magic group”? European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 267–284. doi: 10.1080/02619760701486118

 Google Scholar

*Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Howard, C. D., Barrett, A. F., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112. doi: 10.2190/EC.43.1.f

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Huang, K., Lubin, I. A., & Ge, X. (2011). Situated learning in an educational technology course for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1200–1212. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hurme, T.-R., Merenluoto, K., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Socially shared metacognition of pre-service primary teachers in a computer-supported mathematics course and their feelings of task difficulty: A case study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 503–524. doi: 10.1080/13803610903444659

 Google Scholar

*Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges? The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 463–481. doi: 10.1348/000709909X402811

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

*Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A., & Jenkins, P. (2005). Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(1), 2–23. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.24.1.2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Jenkins, J. M., & Veal, M. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ PCK development during peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 49–68. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.22.1.49

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Koc, M. (2011). Let’s make a movie: Investigating pre-service teachers’ reflections on using video-recorded role playing cases in Turkey. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 95–106. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lamb, P., Lane, K., & Aldous, D. (2013). Enhancing the spaces of reflection: A buddy peer-review process within physical education initial teacher education. European Physical Education Review, 19(1), 21–38. doi: 10.1177/1356336X12457293

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lee, H.-J., & Baek, E. (2012). Facilitating deep learning in a learning community. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 8(1), 1–13. doi: 10.4018/jthi.2012010101

 Google Scholar

*Lockhorst, D., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2010). CSCL in teacher training: What learning tasks lead to collaboration? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 63–78. doi: 10.1080/14759390903579190

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Main, K. (2012). Effective middle school teacher teams: A ternary model of interdependency rather than a catch phrase. Teachers and Teaching, 18(1), 75–88. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2011.622556

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mallette, B., Maheady, L., & Harper, G. F. (1999). The effects of reciprocal peer coaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with special learning needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 201–216. doi: 10.1177/088840649902200402

 Google Scholar

*Manouchehri, A. (2001). Collegial interaction and reflective practice. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 86–97. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2001.10463032

 Google Scholar

*Matthew, K. I., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. A. (2009). Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in a language arts methods class. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 51–72. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782541

 Google Scholar

*Meirink, J. A. (2007). Individual teacher learning in a context of collaboration in teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Leiden, Leiden , The Netherlands.

 Google Scholar

*Meirink, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161–181. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2010.481256

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2007). A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in collaborative settings. Teachers and Teaching, 13(2), 145–164. doi: 10.1080/13540600601152496

 Google Scholar

*Meirink, J. A., Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2009). How do teachers learn in the workplace? An examination of teacher learning activities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 209–224. doi: 10.1080/02619760802624096

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nicholas, H., & Ng, W. (2009). Fostering online social construction of science knowledge with primary pre-service teachers working in virtual teams. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 379–398. doi: 10.1080/13598660903050336

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2006). Professional teacher learning in virtual environments. E-Learning, 3(1), 62–74. doi: 10.2304/elea.2006.3.1.62

 Google Scholar

Prestridge, S. (2009). Teachers’ talk in professional development activity that supports change in their ICT pedagogical beliefs and practices. Teacher Development, 13(1), 43–55. doi: 10.1080/13664530902858493

 Google Scholar

*Ritchie, G., & Peters, S. (2001). Using narratives in conferences to improve the CMC learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 376–385. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00194.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rock, T. C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 77–92.

 Google Scholar

*Ross, J. A. (1996). The influence of computer communication skills on participation in a computer conferencing course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37–52. doi: 10.2190/6TYW-ADV1-W0LC-N9H0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Roychoudhury, A., & Roth, W.-M. (1992). Student involvement in learning: Collaboration in science for preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(2), 47–52. doi: 10.1007/BF02614739

 Google Scholar

*Ruan, J., & Beach, S. A. (2005). Using online peer dialogue journaling to promote reflection in elementary preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 27(3), 64–75. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2005.10463391

 Google Scholar

*Schuck, S. (2003). The use of electronic question and answer forums in mathematics teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 5, 19–31.

 Google Scholar

*Shin, E.-K., Wilkins, E. A., & Ainsworth, J. (2007). The nature and effectiveness of peer feedback during an early clinical experience in an elementary education program. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 40–52. doi: 10.1080/01626620.2007.10463428

 Google Scholar

*Wilkins, E. A., Shin, E.-K., & Ainsworth, J. (2009). The effects of peer feedback practices with elementary education teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), 79–93.

 Google Scholar

*Shriki, A., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2011). Nurturing a community of practice through a collaborative design of lesson plans on a wiki system. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 339–357.

 Google Scholar

*Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. doi: 10.1080/1470329032000172720

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*So, W. W. (2012). Quality of learning outcomes in an online video-based learning community: Potential and challenges for student teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 143–158. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2012.669828

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*So, W. W., Hung, V. H., & Yip, W. Y. (2008). The digital video database: A virtual learning community for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 73–90. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1231

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vincent, J., & Jones, A. (2008). Using models for understanding pedagogical change in a technology environment: A case study of IWB implementation in a secondary school. Australian Educational Computing, 23(2), 32–37. Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au/journal/23/2/using-models-understanding-pedagogical-change-technology-32-environment-case-study-iwb-

 Google Scholar

*Wade, S. E., & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers’ discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 134–160. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.2.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, Th., Bolhuis, S., & Bergen, Th. C. M. (2008). Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 982–1002. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar