Development of professional learning communities through action research: understanding professional learning in practice

References

• Darling-Hammond, L., and N. Richardson. 2009. “Research Review/teacher Learning: What Matters?” Educational Leadership 66 (5): 46–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J., C. Clayton, and J. Broome. 2018. “Thinking like Researchers: Action Research and Its Impact on Novice Teachers’ Thinking.” Educational Action Research 26 (1): 59–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1284012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimmock, C. 2016. “Conceptualising the Research–practice–professional Development Nexus: Mobilising Schools as ‘Research-engaged’ Professional Learning Communities.” Professional Development in Education 42 (1): 36–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.963884.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groundwater-Smith, S., and N. Mockler. 2009. Teacher Professional Learning in an Age of Compliance: Mind the Gap. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9417-0.
   Google Scholar
• Gustavsen, B. 2001. “Theory and Practice: The Mediating Discourse.” In Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Action Research and Inquiry, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 18–26. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, S., and L.A. Dack. 2014. “Towards a Culture of Inquiry for Data Use in Schools: Breaking down Professional Learning Barriers through Intentional Interruption.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 42 (September): 35–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2014. The Action Research Planner. Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, A. 2014. “Understanding Continuing Professional Development: The Need for Theory to Impact on Policy and Practice.” Professional Development in Education 40 (5): 688–697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M.M. 2016. “How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching?” Review of Educational Research 86 (4): 945–980. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, T. 2008. “Action Research through Dialogue Conferences.” In Nurturing Praxis – Action Research in Partnerships between School and University in a Nordic Light, edited by K. Rönnerman, E.M. Furu, and P. Salo, 176–192. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Mockler, N., and S. Groundwater-Smith. 2015. “Seeking for the Unwelcome Truths: Beyond Celebration in Inquiry-based Teacher Professional Learning.” Teachers and Teaching 21 (5): 603–614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.995480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Møller, J. 1998. “Action Research with Principals: Gain, Strain and Dilemmas.” Educational Action Research 6 (1): 69–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09650799800200050.
   Google Scholar
• Muijs, D., L. Kyriakides, G. van der Werf, B. Creemers, H. Timperley, and L. Earl. 2014. “State of the Art – Teacher Effectiveness and Professional Learning.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 25 (2): 231–256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noffke, S. 2009. “Revisiting the Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action Research.” In The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research, edited by S.E. Noffke and B. Somekh, 6–24. London: SAGE Publications. doi:https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021.n2.
   Google Scholar
• Opfer, V.D., and D. Pedder. 2011. “Conceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning.” Review of Educational Research 81 (3): 376–407. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SFS [Swedish Code of Statutes]. 2010. Skollag. [Swedish Education Act], 800. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
   Google Scholar
• Skolverket. 2016. “Action Research Improves Quality Work.” Accessed 14 September 2016. http://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/forskning/forskolan/relationer-larande/aktionsforskning-forbattrar-systematiskt-kvalitetsarbete-1.225646
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S.U., S. Hayes, and P. Shea. 2017. “A Critical Review of the Use of Wenger’s Community of Practice (Cop) Theoretical Framework in Online and Blended Learning Research, 2000–2014.” Online Learning 21 (1): 209–237. doi:https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.963.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas. 2006. “Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Educational Change 7 (4): 221–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
   Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10): 837–851. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren Little, J. 2002. “Locating Learning in Teachers’ Communities of Practice: Opening up Problems of Analysis in Records of Everyday Work.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (8): 917–946. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00052-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 2000. “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems.” Organization 7 (2): 225–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 2018. “A Social Theory of Learning.” In Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists … in Their Own Words, edited by K. Illeris, 219–228. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wennergren, A.-C. 2016. “Teachers as Learners – With a Little Help from a Critical Friend.” Educational Action Research 24 (2): 260–279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1058170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wubbels, T. 2007. “Do We Know a Community of Practice When We See One?” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 16 (2): 225–233. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390701406851.
   Google Scholar