Education, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCO
Kelly, Jennifer Lynn
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This case study examined professional learning experiences of ten teachers engaged in a provincially-developed professional learning community (PLC) over a period of two years that was formed as part of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) British Columbia provincial initiative. From a relational learning perspective, I explored how learning in community fulfilled social and practical needs for teachers that may explain why and how they enjoyed, gained from, and came to appreciate and value their collective professional learning. Data included transcripts of semi-structured individual and focus group interviews, as well as researcher observations. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive processes and embraced an appreciative lens. Three main themes emerged: being authentic as a person and professional, building a relational culture of learners, and the learning process through change of practice. Viewing the experiences of the teachers in this case study from a relational lens highlighted the importance of creating space and time for teachers to engage wholistically in their collective learning, forming bonds of trust, care, safety, and respect that were essential to their willingness to take the necessary risks to grow and learn, and to feel they were part of a community making a difference with their students and with each other. One of the study’s significant findings describes how teachers can engage in wholistic professional learning, which involves experiences connecting the mind and heart while learning in relation to others. In addition, I suggest that teacher professional learning ought to focus on providing time for professionals to develop learning relationships, encourage teachers to theorize, and allow on-going inquiry for teachers. This research shifts the focus of attention toward teachers’ experiences of their learning in PLCs, offering an illustrative example of how teachers’ relationships provide rich ground for meaningful professional learning.
i TEACHER PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: FOCUSING ON A WHOLISTIC EXPERIENCE LINKING THE MIND AND THE HEART THROUGH RELATIONAL LEARNING by Jennifer Lynn Kelly M.A., The University of British Columbia Okanagan, 2012 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) April 2019 © Jennifer Lynn Kelly, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: TEACHER PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: FOCUSING ON A WHOLISTIC EXPERIENCE LINKING THE MIND AND THE HEART THROUGH RELATIONAL LEARNING submitted by Jennifer Lynn Kelly in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dr. Sabre Cherkowski, Faculty of Education UBC Okanagan Supervisor Dr. Margaret Macintyre Latta, Faculty of Education UBC Okanagan Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Joan Bottorff, Faculty of Nursing UBC Okanagan Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Deborah Butler, Faculty of Education UBC Vancouver University Examiner Dr. Catherine McGregor, Faculty of Education University of Victoria External Examiner iii Abstract This case study examined professional learning experiences of ten teachers engaged in a provincially-developed professional learning community (PLC) over a period of two years that was formed as part of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) British Columbia provincial initiative. From a relational learning perspective, I explored how learning in community fulfilled social and practical needs for teachers that may explain why and how they enjoyed, gained from, and came to appreciate and value their collective professional learning. Data included transcripts of semi-structured individual and focus group interviews, as well as researcher observations. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive processes and embraced an appreciative lens. Three main themes emerged: being authentic as a person and professional, building a relational culture of learners, and the learning process through change of practice. Viewing the experiences of the teachers in this case study from a relational lens highlighted the importance of creating space and time for teachers to engage wholistically in their collective learning, forming bonds of trust, care, safety, and respect that were essential to their willingness to take the necessary risks to grow and learn, and to feel they were part of a community making a difference with their students and with each other. One of the study’s significant findings describes how teachers can engage in wholistic professional learning, which involves experiences connecting the mind and heart while learning in relation to others. In addition, I suggest that teacher professional learning ought to focus on providing time for professionals to develop learning relationships, encourage teachers to theorize, and allow on-going inquiry for teachers. This research shifts the focus of attention toward teachers’ experiences of their learning in PLCs, offering an illustrative example of how teachers’ relationships provide rich ground for meaningful professional learning. iv Lay Summary This case study examined professional learning experiences of ten teachers engaged in a provincially-developed professional learning community (PLC) over a period of two years that was formed as part of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) British Columbia provincial initiative. I found that teachers can engage in wholistic professional learning, which involves experiences connecting the mind and heart while learning in relation to others. I suggest that teacher professional learning ought to focus on providing time for professional to develop learning relationships, encourage teachers to theorize, and allow on-going learning experiences for teachers. v Preface The University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board reviewed the protocol for the research project in 2012. Continual approval has been granted since 2012. The Committee found the procedures to be ethically acceptable and a Certificate of Approval was issued. UBC BREB number: H12-02025. vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Collective Professional Learning: Creating Spaces for Relational Learning ........... 5 1.2 The PLC in this study: Changing Results for Young Readers Collaborative Inquiry ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 My Insider Role in this Research .................................................................................. 9 1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................ 12 1.6 Overview of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 15 2.1 An Overview of Professional Learning for Teachers ................................................ 16 Collaborative learning for teachers. ........................................................................... 19 vii Current understanding of a PLC model .................................................................... 23 2.2 A Review of Case Study Research on Professional Learning Communities .......... 25 Shared leadership as an innovative organizational aspect of PLCs ........................ 27 Responsiveness to teacher learning and/or student learning as an aspect of PLC leadership ...................................................................................................................... 33 A focus on teaching practice through participation in a PLC ................................. 36 A focus on data through participation in a PLC ....................................................... 40 Teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy .............................................................. 42 2.3 Summary of the Review ............................................................................................... 44 2.4 A Closer Look at Characteristics of Relational Learning ........................................ 47 Relational epistemology: The nature of knowing ..................................................... 47 Relationships within community. ............................................................................... 50 Foregrounding relationships as foundational to learning in PLCs. ........................ 54 2.5 A Relational Learning Conceptual Framework ........................................................ 72 2.6 Relational learning: A foundation of teacher professional learning ....................... 75 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 79 3.1 Philosophical Assumptions: A Social Constructivist Perspective ............................ 80 3.2 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 82 3.3 Case Study Research .................................................................................................... 83 3.4 Researcher Involvement .............................................................................................. 85 viii 3.5 Participant Selection .................................................................................................... 88 3.6 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 89 Individual interviews. .................................................................................................. 91 Focus group interviews. ............................................................................................... 92 Researcher observations. ............................................................................................. 93 3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 94 Coding of data. ............................................................................................................. 96 Categorizing. ................................................................................................................. 97 Themes. ......................................................................................................................... 99 Trustworthiness. ........................................................................................................ 103 3.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY ...................................................... 107 4.1 Overview of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) Initiative ........ 107 4.2 Roles of the Educators Taking Part in the CR4YR Initiative ................................ 108 4.3 Structure of the CR4YR Initiative ............................................................................ 110 4.4 The Power of the Case Study Student ...................................................................... 114 4.5 Structure of the PLC Sessions Each Year ................................................................ 114 4.6 Research Gathered by the Ministry of Education on CR4YR ............................... 116 4.7 Challenges Experienced Throughout the CR4YR Initiative in my District ......... 119 4.8 Overview of Participants through a view of their Learning Teams ...................... 121 ix 4.9 Summary of the Chapter ........................................................................................... 132 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 134 5.1 Theme One: Being Authentic as a Person and a Professional ............................... 137 5.2 Learning with Others and from Others ................................................................... 138 5.3 Letting go of Unrealistic Expectations ..................................................................... 141 5.4 Acknowledging the Expertise in Colleagues and Themselves ................................ 143 5.5 The Fear of Judgment and the Value of Risk-Taking ............................................ 148 5.6 Theme Two: Building a Relational Culture of Learners ........................................ 153 5.7 Building a Safe Space of Relational Learning ......................................................... 154 5.8 Continuity: Engaging in Meaningful Experiences Over Time .............................. 159 5.9 Dealing with Negative Experiences ........................................................................... 165 5.10 Theme Three: The Learning Process and Change of Practice .............................. 169 5.11 Collective Knowledge Building to Change Practice ................................................ 170 5.12 Diversity in Teacher Teams Provided Co-Learning Environments ...................... 174 5.13 Impact of PLC Collaboration on Schools ................................................................ 177 5.14 Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes .............................................................................. 180 5.15 Summary of the Chapter ........................................................................................... 181 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................ 183 6.1 Authenticity: Exploring Continuity, Community, and Care ................................. 185 6.2 Authenticity Through Continuity ............................................................................. 188 x 6.3 Authenticity Through Community ........................................................................... 190 6.4 Authenticity Through Care ....................................................................................... 192 6.5 Learning to Theorize: Exploring Intellectual Growth within Community .......... 194 6.6 Theorizing Though Engagement with Theory and Practice .................................. 198 6.7 Building Expertise Through Merging Theory and Practice .................................. 202 6.8 Theorizing Through Empowerment within groups of Teachers ........................... 205 6.9 Viewing PLCs from a Relational Lens: Professional Learning as a Wholistic Experience .................................................................................................................. 209 6.10 Wholistic Professional Learning ............................................................................... 212 6.11 Contributions to Literature ....................................................................................... 215 6.12 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 217 6.13 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 224 6.14 Researcher Reflections ............................................................................................... 225 6.15 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 226 References .................................................................................................................................. 228 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 254 Appendix A: Consent Form ................................................................................................. 254 Appendix B: Consent Form ................................................................................................. 259 Appendix C: Case Study Cover sheet ................................................................................. 263 Appendix D: Case study record of individual actions/results ........................................... 265 xi List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: Relational Learning in PLCs ................................................. 72 Figure 2: Relational Learning in PLCs: Wholistic Professional Learning ................................ 212 xii List of Tables Table 1: Timeline of participant interviews ................................................................................. 91 Table 2: Initial Categories ............................................................................................................. 99 Table 3: Themes developed from Categories ............................................................................. 101 Table 4: Themes and Sub-themes ............................................................................................... 102 Table 5: Research participants grouped by collaborative school teams ..................................... 122 Table 6: Themes and sub-themes ............................................................................................... 135 xiii Acknowledgement I wish to deeply thank my committee for their years of reading, discussing, sense-making, and reassuring me through my dissertation. I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Sabre Cherkowski, who walked as a trusted friend along this journey with unwavering belief and enthusiasm for my research. I would like to thank Dr. Susan Crichton, who was a positive presence and always added humour to our meetings, along with a smiling face. I appreciated Dr. Margaret Macintyre-Latta’s calming presence that was reassuring but, at the same time, gently probing for deep thinking. I am grateful to Dr. Joan Bottorff as she provided thoughtful questions and encouragement to consider different perspectives. My committee wove together their strengths, knowledge, and guidance to help me see the world through the eyes of a researcher. I often reflect on how fortunate I am to have such an encouraging, positive, and genuinely caring support network, but as I write these words I am overcome with gratitude. I truly appreciate the people in my life that made this accomplishment happen – through listening, cheering, loving, believing, and most importantly, holding my hand on this journey. My husband Steve was a continual source of strength. He continually cultivated a loving and nurturing home environment, but more significantly, reminded me to have fun once in a while. My Mom and Dad, Molly and Derry, not only provided me with a lifetime of unconditional love and support, but they are my biggest cheerleaders. I admire them both for the generous, positive spirit they bring into our world. My friend Lerae encouraged me to talk through my thoughts and ideas about my research on our long walks, as she took up the role of a critical friend, and more significantly, a best friend. My siblings, Kristy and Sean gave me the gift of curiosity into my research and their belief in me. Thank you. xiv Dedication To my loving husband Steve, We did it :) 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Canada has recently drawn positive international attention for quality education as indicated by international achievement scores (OECD, 2016). This international attention is leading to increased awareness of the quality of teaching and learning with an interest in understanding the role of professional learning in improving education. Findings from a recent pan-Canadian study on professional learning show that most teachers regularly participate in professional learning activities and experiences; however, not all of these experiences are necessarily relevant, engaging, and meaningful (Campbell et al., 2016). In general, the most valued form of professional development described in the report was collaborative learning experiences where teachers learned from and with other teachers. Teachers described the importance of collective, job-embedded professional learning, but they explained the challenges of these opportunities given the pressures of work and time constraints. Finding ways for teachers to learn with and from each other is important given that traditional opportunities for teacher learning, typically experienced as invited speakers during in-service and professional development days spread throughout the year, rarely leads to meaningful changes in teachers’ learning or practices (Timperley, 2011). In part, traditional professional development models often fail to create conditions that may increase engagement for improved professional learning (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). As an organizational structure intended to create collaborative learning conditions for teachers in school, professional learning communities (PLCs) emerged from the school improvement research in the early 1990’s as a promising model for professional learning (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). However, although many schools adopted PLC language and structures, research indicated that without adequate attention to ensuring conditions are created for meaningful teacher learning, 2 PLCs may not serve their intended aim of being productive meeting spaces for learning about improving teaching (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). In this dissertation, I rely on Stoll and Seashore Louis’ (2007) description of a PLC as emphasizing professional learning within a caring, cohesive group that focuses on collective knowledge building. Given the importance of teacher learning for ongoing development and improvement of teaching practices (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Halbert & Kaser, 2013; Timperley, 2011), and knowing the value teachers place on collaborative opportunities to learn with and from their colleagues (Campbell et al., 2016; Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; McGregor, 2014), understanding teachers’ experiences within PLCs is important for ensuring professional learning opportunities are meaningful and impactful for them. Although the research literature on PLCs highlights the importance of creating conditions for collective learning within the PLC structure (Kooy, 2015; Ning, Lee & Lee, 2015; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007), understanding what it means for teachers to experience collective learning that leads to meaningful changes in their knowledge about and practices of teaching requires more considered attention. Similar to the recent attention focused on the importance of understanding how to create conditions for student learning that honours and values the complexity of these learning environments (OECD, 2016), understanding teacher learning environments is an essential aspect for continued research on and practice of professional learning. Part of the challenge with creating conditions for meaningful learning for teachers is the need to orient away from traditional notions of professional learning that often position teachers as recipients of information, and instead embrace an approach that actively engages professionals in learning in ways that affect their engagement and motivation (Mitchell & Sackney, 2009). Professional learning that is relevant, meaningful, and impactful and focuses on mutual dialogue 3 and collaborative practice has the potential for changes in teaching (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016; McGregor, 2014). Cherkowski and Schnellert (2018) described this engagement as “self and co-regulated learning” for teachers that increases motivation and teacher agency through shared exploration of shared topics of interest (p. 239). Fullan and Hargreaves (2016) referred to this kind of engagement as collaborative professionalism and explain it is a deeper, more rigorous form of professional collaboration. Collaborative professionalism highlights the importance of actively engaging professionals in meaningful learning that is embedded in the culture of the school in ways that are responsive to their students and motivating for the teachers (BCTF, 2010; Campbell et al., 2016; Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016). Recognizing the importance of interdependent relationships that form the relational webs within which teachers work and learn in a PLC (Mitchell & Sackney, 2009), and assuming that relationships are the foundation within which learning occurs (Thayer-Bacon, 2010), in this research I used a relational learning lens to draw more focused attention to how and why teachers in PLCs build relationships that empowered them to deepen and extend their learning in ways that was meaningful, relevant, and impactful for them. Certainly, the importance of engaging with others in developing interdependent relationships, where teachers co-create knowledge in generative and emergent ways that are responsive to their needs for improving their students’ learning, is highlighted in the learning community literature (Hargreaves, 2000; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009; Reeves, 2010; Rigelman & Ruban, 2012; Timperley, 2011). However, the attention to relationships as an important aspect of teachers’ learning experiences has only been given a cursory focus in the literature on PLCs where this is mostly an organizational issue of ensuring time, place, and resources for teachers to 4 come together with their colleagues to inquire into their teaching practices (Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite & Wilcox, 2015; Joliffe, 2015; Owen, 2015, 2016; Sindberg, 2016). Much has been learned from this research about how to build the necessary structures for teachers to come together in PLCs in focused conversations about teaching and learning. What is not yet fully understood is how the teachers themselves experience these PLC structures, and how these opportunities for meeting to talk with colleagues about teaching and learning can lead to meaningful impacts in their own practices (Hairon, Goh, Chua & Wang, 2017). PLCs are useful organizational structures that have been implemented widely; however, the promise and potential of PLCs to build and sustain learning cultures in schools has not necessarily been lived out fully in practice. The structure of PLCs may provide teachers with the necessary space and place to engage in collective learning. However, understanding the necessary characteristics for implementing effective PLCs does not always translate into how to grow conditions within the PLC for teachers to engage in meaningful learning (Hairon et al., 2017). More research is needed to understand how teacher participation in PLCs translates to changes in student learning, as well as a need for more substantive theorization about the effects of PLCs in growing and shifting teacher knowledge, beliefs, and practices (Hairon et al., 2017). To answer these knowledge gaps about PLCs, the research focus tends to be on how to improve leadership for implementing more effective structures that build a learning culture across the school (Hairon et al., 2017; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2006). Complementary to this important pursuit, I align with research that suggests attention to teachers’ experiences of building their own learning within their context (Butler & Schnellert, 2012; Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; McGregor, 2014) may offer insights to further grow and 5 build knowledge and practice about PLC experiences that promote and encourage meaningful teacher learning. In this research, I shift the focus of attention within PLCs toward teachers’ experiences of their learning through paying attention to the conditions they create with each other through their relationships. From a relational learning (Biesta, 2004; Brownlee & Berthelsen; 2008; Thayer-Bacon, 2004) and social constructivist perspective (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Creswell, 2003; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994), I assume that relationships are the foundation for all learning. In addition, a new focus to understand teachers experiences within PLCs may offer important insights for understanding how to promote, encourage, and sustain meaningful, impactful, and ongoing teacher professional learning (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016). In this qualitative case study, I used a relational lens to focus on teachers’ experiences of what it meant to them to build and grow learning relationships with each other within a provincially-developed PLC initiative. Through this research, I aimed to contribute new knowledge about PLCs, shifting the focus toward the importance of focusing on the relationships that can be developed over time as teachers engage together in a community of learning. 1.1 Collective Professional Learning: Creating Spaces for Relational Learning Collective professional learning may be rooted in the human need to belong and contribute to a community of professionals with the understanding that their contribution is valued and adding to the overall knowledge of all the members (Lieberman & Mace, 2010; Vangrieken, Dochy & Raes, 2016). At the organizational level, the shared pursuit of collective professional learning experienced by a group of teachers committed to the complex and challenging work of teaching and learning can lead a shift in the culture of the school toward 6 ongoing and sustained professional learning for improved student learning (McGregor, 2014). Engaging in a shared professional learning environment, such as collaborative inquiry, creates opportunities for teachers to talk to each other about their practices, often creating generative tensions from which they can learn about their practices as they talk about different ways of knowing and doing in their work (Levine, 2010). Focusing on relationships as the site of learning for teachers extends the ideas of professional learning beyond the notion of gathering teachers together to talk about their work. A relational learning perspective assumes that learning happens with and through each other, as we learn in relation to others (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008; Bruner, 2006). A relational learning view of teacher professional learning promotes an understanding that teaching is more than using a set of technical and/or instrumental set of skills, but rather a profession that involves humans working and learning with others to build community for learning with and among colleagues and students (Mockler, 2013; Musanti & Pence, 2010). Human beings are meaning makers, and meaning is often made through reflecting on interactions with others (Bruner, 2006; Dewey, 1916; Palmer, 2007; Noddings, 2003); therefore, what it means to be human underpins the concept of learning with and from others. From a relational learning perspective teaching can be considered a more complex and complicated process of ongoing connecting, meaning-making, and knowledge building that happens through and in relationships (Mockler, 2013; Noddings, 2013; Reeves, 2010). Simlarly, Hairon, Goh, Chua and Wang (2017) articulated how understanding the characteristics of PLCs are useful but insufficient for knowing how to establish a PLC or how to engage teachers in the PLC learning opportunity. According to Hairon et al. (2017), a PLC is a multidimensional construct that is complex and contextual, and so future research should include 7 theoretical and operational analyses to understand what is happening in theory and in practice, with the intent to merge the two constructs. Despite a growing body of research on PLCs, Hairon, et al. (2017) identified gaps in the research base. First, there are few studies that provide evidence of improvement of student learning through enhancing teacher capacity through participating in a PLC. Second, there is a lack of substantive theorization about the effects of PLCs, such as development in teacher knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Third, there is a lack of theorization on the contextual aspects that impact PLCs, such as leadership and school culture. Hairon et al. (2017) explained that, “based on the above explications of the three research gaps on the lack of theorization on the construct, condition and contexts of PLCs, there is indeed more empirical work to be done in the PLC field of study” (Hairon et al., 2017, p. 73). In this study, I widen the perspective of professional learning in PLCs by examining relationships that developed over time within a PLC as an important component for teachers to create conditions that promote and encourage meaningful and relevant professional learning. I focused on a relational approach to learning recognizing relationships as the foundation of learning, while building on the emphasis that learning is socially constructed (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2010). To explore and understand PLCs from a relational learning lens, I developed a theoretical framework from theoretical research on PLCs, relational epistemology, and relational learning that highlighted for me three characteristics of relational learning in PLCs: caring for others, a sense of belonging, and valuing of differences. These three characteristics thread across relational learning literature and the literature on effective PLCs (Biesta, 2004; Christman et al., 2016; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Goodnough, 2010; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011; Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Palmer, 1993; Hansen, 2011), and offer a way of viewing the teachers’ experiences through a relational lens. 8 Building and growing relationships for learning within community requires a level of care and attention to who each person is and what they bring to the group, and an attention to embracing knowledge-making within the community, as the site for learning. Focusing on relationships as the site of learning means paying attention to how diverse strengths and interests drive the learning within and through community, valuing the tensions that occur as diverse ways of knowing and doing are explored and examined together. Although I draw specific attention to three characteristics of relational learning for the purpose of this study, it is important to point out that relational learning is often not the ‘visible’ part of community, rather it is the ‘inward and invisible grace’ that Palmer (2007) referred to in his description of community and commitment to belonging to the community (Hansen, 2011). Focusing on relational learning in PLCs offers an opportunity to more explicitly notice, examine, and encourage the inward and invisible grace that can nurture and grow the relationships within which deep and meaningful learning may emerge. 1.2 The PLC in this study: Changing Results for Young Readers Collaborative Inquiry In this study, I explored professional learning experiences of teachers engaged in a provincially-developed PLC that was formed as part of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) provincial initiative (Jeroski, 2015). The Ministry of Education in British Columbia funded the PLC sessions from 2012-2015 by providing money for teacher release time for seven half days dedicated throughout the school year for classroom teachers and specialist teachers to engage in collaborative inquiry. For the purposes of this study, a collaborative inquiry was defined as teachers working together to identify common challenges, analyze relevant data, and 9 test out instructional approaches (Brownlie & Schnellert, 2009; Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2017, 2018; Halbert & Kaser, 2013). As the literacy helping teacher within my school district during the CR4YR initiative, I worked closely with the provincial facilitators to build and offer the PLC structures for the teachers in my district. Deciding to study this PLC was both a research and a practitioner desire. Over the course of my 18 years of teaching, I have paid particular attention to how to work with my colleagues to grow and build knowledge about our practices together. I have pursued research on PLCs to grow theoretical and practical knowledge about how to design and offer PLCs in schools and have been an advocate for PLCs in our district with the aim of building and growing learning cultures in schools. Focusing my research on the CR4YR PLC offered an opportunity to inquire into teachers’ learning experiences in a PLC from a relational learning perspective. I collected teachers’ stories about their experiences through individual interviews, focus group conversations, and my own observations as a researcher and as a literacy helping teacher associated with the CR4YR initiative. These conversation opportunities and my observations allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of what it meant to these teachers to engage in a PLC over the course of several years to learn more about how they built relationships with their colleagues within this structure, and how these experiences influenced their professional learning and ongoing development of their teaching. 1.3 My Insider Role in this Research At the time of the CR4YR initiative, I had recently completed a Master’s degree focused on the nature of effective PLCs, and was very interested in learning more about how I could work with the district to develop effective structures that would promote and support 10 professional learning for all our teachers. With the permission of my district and the consent of the teachers, I carried out individual interviews at the end of each year to learn more about their experiences in this PLC initiative. These interviews became an important source of data for this case study when I began exploring their professional learning experiences from a relational learning perspective. Throughout the first years of my doctoral program, I maintained an interest in understanding professional learning in PLCs, but I noticed I was shifting my focus away from my previous interests in understanding how to implement structures at the school and district level that would allow teachers the time and space to come together to talk about, work on together, and improve their teaching. I wanted to learn more about a perspective that is not always accessed in research on PLCs, but that I knew, as a practitioner and a doctoral student researcher, was essential to understanding how to create conditions for teachers to want to come together to engage in deep and important learning—the teachers’ own perspective about their learning experiences. As I read more about teacher learning across various disciplines such as curriculum theory and educational philosophy, I determined that a relational learning perspective might offer new insights for how we design and carry out professional learning in PLCs. Knowing about the CR4YR experiences through the individual interviews I had previously carried out, I believed that this group of teachers could offer a rich case from which to learn about professional learning from a relational perspective. Through focus group conversations with them looking back on what the PLC initiative has meant to them, I gained insights into what happens when teachers have enough time to develop relationships that mean something to them, that help them to build a sense of confidence and trust to open their practice to each other and learn from each other about what works and what may not in their classrooms. As a teacher I 11 know how important it is to pay attention to teachers’ experiences as we think about ways to create opportunities for them to want to learn about and improve their practice. This case study offers an illustrative example of the workings of a PLC, ensuring teachers’ own experiences are the central focus of learning about the complexities and challenges of these learning initiatives. My role as an insider with this group afforded me the opportunity to put teachers in the forefront of a study about PLCs, to learn from the teachers themselves in order to understand what was meaningful and important to them in this professional learning initiative. 1.4 Research Questions This study was designed to address the following overarching question: In what ways does using a relational lens offer new insights and understandings about how to grow and improve professional learning for teachers? From this overarching focus, I explored how learning in community fulfilled social and practical needs for teachers that may explain why and how they enjoyed, gained from, and came to appreciate and value their collective professional learning. The following research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways does a relational lens provide new insights for fostering and supporting relevant, valuable, and meaningful collective professional learning for teachers? 2. What qualities and characteristics of professional learning become evident through relational learning? 3. How does conceptualizing PLCs from a relational epistemology provide a new perspective for organizing professional learning in ways that promotes building relationship? 12 1.5 Glossary of Terms Collective professional learning: the opportunity for teachers to formulate their own questions and access tools such as relevant research, other teacher’s experience, and various teaching resources, to facilitate individual and joint inquiry (Levine, 2010). Collaborative inquiry: teachers working together to identify common challenges, analyze relevant data, and test out instructional approaches (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2017, 2018). Community: collections of individuals who are bonded together by natural will and who are together bound to a set of shared ideas and ideals (Sergiovanni, 1994). Cosmopolitanism: value placed on the common and shared features of human life, making the humanness the very essence of the world (Hansen, 2011). Efficacy: the belief that one possesses the ability to perform their job effectively (Janssen, 2004). Humanness: “sincere and meaningful respect for all human capacities” such as genetic predispositions, talents and interests (Noddings, 2003, p. 232). Professional learning community (PLC): “the focus is not just on individual teachers’ learning but on (1) professional learning; (2) within the context of a cohesive group; (3) that focuses on collective knowledge, and (4) occurs within an ethic of interpersonal caring that permeates the life of teachers, students and school leaders” (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007, p. 3). Professionalism: “is characterized by members who possess specialized expert knowledge and who pledge their first and primary responsibility to the welfare of those whom they serve” (Tschannen-Moran, 2009, p. 225). 13 Relational epistemology: “an approach to knowing that emphasizes that knowledge is something that is socially constructed by embedded and embodied people who are in relations with each other and their greater environment” (Thayer-Bacon, 2004, p. 166). Relational learning: a lens that recognizes relationships as the foundation of learning, while building on the emphasis that learning is socially constructed (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2010). Theory development: Teachers engaging in “theorization shifts the emphasis in professional development thinking away from individuals and courses to systemic, complex understandings of the ways in which learning is created and shared within communities of practice” (Knight, 2002, p. 229). 1.6 Overview of the Dissertation This dissertation consists of six chapters. In Chapter Two I offer a review of the literature that underpins the theoretical framework for this study, literature related to professional learning with a focus on relational aspects of learning in community. I outline the three characteristics of relational learning that form the conceptual framework for a relational learning lens, care, belonging within community, and valuing differences. I provide a review of case study research on PLCs in order to situate my study within the current research base. In Chapter Three I describe the methodology for this study, outlining my social constructivist perspective that influenced the design of this study. I explain the processes of data collection, data analysis, participant selection, and trustworthiness. Chapter Four provides a description of the CR4YR initiative and an introduction to the participants and their learning teams for their collaborative inquiries. In Chapter Five I present the findings that emerged through data analysis and present the data in themes that convey the essence of the participants’ voices and experiences. Lastly, in 14 Chapter Six I provide a discussion based on the findings in chapter five that connects the findings to the research questions. I provide a new conceptual framework and discuss this within the existing PLC literature. Finally, I outline theoretical and practical possibilities for building and growing the field of research and practice on relational learning for teachers within PLCs. 15 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW PLCs have become a widespread organizational approach for bringing teachers together to talk and learn about their work. However, although research on PLCs has provided insights on how to design and implement these models of professional learning in schools, understanding how to create conditions within these PLCs for meaningful learning that transfers to changes in knowledge, beliefs, and practices is still necessary (Hairon et al., 2017). Linking the need for further understanding about what it means for teachers to experiences PLCs as potentially transforming learning opportunities with a relational perspective of learning offers new ways to explore and examine teacher learning in PLCs. Stoll and Seashore Louis (2007) describe PLCs as professional learning opportunities for educators to build a cohesive community with the focus on constructing collective knowledge through an ethic of interpersonal caring. My experience with PLCs aligned with Stoll and Seashore Louis’ definition and provided the foundation to build on through this study, as I examined the relational side of professional learning for teachers. Through years of facilitating PLCs, I noticed the importance of a cohesive, caring community and how relationships provided the safe space to thoroughly explore practice in relation to learning with and from others. In this chapter, I provide an overview of the research literature on PLCs, relational learning, and building community that provided the theoretical framework for this study, offering a description of PLCs by underscoring what makes the framework of a PLC unique to the teaching community. By focusing on the collaborative work of participating within a PLC, I highlight how teachers can form collegial relationships through learning with and from colleagues. I present a review of current case study research on PLCs, indicating trends in empirical research. I conclude the review identifying areas that are 16 understudied in current PLC research and provide a visual representation of the conceptual framework that emerged from the literature review and that guided my study. 2.1 An Overview of Professional Learning for Teachers Teacher learning has been the focus of much research in the past few decades. In general, professional learning for teachers reflects an interest in understanding how to continue to add value to education through the ongoing work of improving teaching through collective learning (Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Despite the encouragement and support for PLCs as an important element for teacher learning for school improvement, the reality is that PLCs are not standard professional practice in most schools and teachers are rarely sufficiently supported with time and resources to ensure effective implementation of the PLC (Hairon et al, 2017; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Historically, the main purpose of teacher professional learning has been connected to improved student learning (Borko, 2004; Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2015; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Sun et al., 2017); however, what the learning looks like for teachers within these professional opportunities has changed over the years. According to Opfer and Pedder (2011), in the 1980’s and early 1990’s many researchers were promoting learning that was contextual and situational, but when the notion of accountability was emphasized through educational policy the research on teaching became more mechanistic and linear aiming to show direct results between teacher learning and student outcomes. The problem with tying teacher learning to test scores was the realization that learning, students’ and teachers,’ cannot be reduced to a set of skills that can be effectively tested or linked to student scores. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act 17 of 2001 instituted in the United States dictated that all teachers participate in high-quality professional development in order to improve instructional practice; however, no definition was given to describe what high-quality meant, nor how teachers would access the mandated professional development (Borko, 2004). Although research and writing on teacher learning has identified the false notion that teacher learning can be determined by narrow conceptions of a set of technical skills (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Muijs et al., 2014; Walton et al., 2014), policies continued to use language that simplified the concept of learning by labelling it as training or in service (Borko, 2004). This use of technician-oriented language to describe professional learning as training effectively reduced teaching to a set of technical skills, such as happens with the use of the term in-service which refers to skills needed to perform a specific job (Walton et al., 2014). Minimizing teaching to a skill-based job usually follows an input-process-output model of learning that emphasizes student achievement as a measure. However, shifting the level of dialogue about teaching to notions of professional learning acknowledges and values the professional work of teaching that requires specialized knowledge and emphasises the professional’s ability to make necessary decisions about student learning based on this knowledge (Cochran-Smith, 2004). In general, learning can be understood as development of new knowledge, skills, ideas, or perspectives, which may be discovered through experience, discussion, reflection, or study. Mezirow (2000) defined learning as “the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience as a guide to future action” (p. 5). Timperley (2011) described professional learning as an “internal process in which individuals create professional knowledge through interaction with [new knowledge and experience] in a way that challenges previous assumptions and creates new meanings” (p. 5). Both definitions 18 refer to new or revised meaning being developed through the learning process. This is a big shift from traditional models of professional development which focused on the provision of practical and technical information, strategies, and tools that were intended to be put into practice as delivered (Borko, 2004; Brodie, 2013; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Hargreaves, 2000; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Timperley, 2011; Walter, Nel, Muller & Lebeloane, 2014). The traditional model is built around the implication that professional learning is best achieved by engaging experts in presenting new information to professionals in ways that support the subsequent use of this information in their practice. This model of professional learning has been described as a “drive-by model” (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009, p. 46) and criticized as being “woefully inadequate” (Borko, 2004, p. 3) because it is experienced as fragmented and intellectually superficial. In addition, others have argued that this model of professional learning is too focused on particular teaching activities, thereby missing opportunities for creating space for teachers to make sense of their practice in an on-going, embedded way that could lead to a greater possibility of sustained improvements in teaching (Brodie, 2013; Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; McGregor, 2014; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Schnellert, Kosak & Moore, 2015). In contrast, models of professional learning that place ownership over the learning process with professionals require them to be engaged in the entire process of ongoing learning for improvement and change in practice (Brodie, 2013). Researchers argue that when professional learning is structured in ways that builds and grows teachers’ knowledge from and with teachers in relation to their classroom context, it is more likely to be relevant to the real problems of the classroom, and so, more engaging and meaningful (Burke & Collier, 2017; Cooper et al., 2016; Lieberman & Mace, 2010; Mintrop & Charles, 2017; Schnellert et al., 2015). Professional learning tends to be more powerful and impactful when teachers join together in dialogue to 19 collectively make sense of their current knowledge of the craft of teaching in relation to new research knowledge and classroom realities, and to begin to identify changes in beliefs and practices to improve teaching through the collective learning experience (Burke & Collier, 2017; Campbell et al., 2016; Goodnough, 2010; Hargreaves, 2000). Collaborative learning for teachers. Although individual learning is understood as an important aspect for ongoing improvement in teaching practices, building collective learning environments often allows educators to be continually exposed to new ideas and perspectives which can have a deeper impact on education reform over time. Emerging out of the research on organizational learning, professional learning communities have become an important structure for bringing teachers together to engage in collective learning toward improving their teaching (Hord, Roussin & Sommers, 2010; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). McGregor (2014) describes the importance of learning collaboratively through networks to serve “as powerful pathways into how systemic transformation of schools and classrooms might be realized” (p. 94). Creating conditions for collective teacher learning throughout a career is an increasingly important aspect of school improvement (Borko, 2004; Brodie, 2013; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). Several conditions have been identified as important for building and sustaining PLCs to promote space for collegial conversations, such as shared leadership, shared vision, shared practice, and on-going, continuous feedback from all members of the community (Cooper et al, 2016; Hord et al., 2010). At the organizational level, there is evidence that the shared pursuit of a common professional learning goal by a group of teachers committed to the work of change can lead to what Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) suggested is a "persistent collective enterprise" that can result in a shift in the culture of the school toward ongoing and sustained professional learning 20 for improved student learning (p. 3). This collective learning by teachers can positively impact student learning (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hord et al, 2010; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Hoy, Sweetland & Smith, 2002; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009a, 2011; Sun, Loeb & Grissom, 2017; Timberley, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2016). Emerging conceptualizations of collective professional learning take into account the complexity of teacher learning that involves teachers’ past experiences, prior knowledge and current practices and beliefs, and is most usefully undertaken in the context of their learning and with other colleagues (Muijs et al., 2014). PLCs can offer situated learning experience wherein teachers can engage with colleagues to focus on their particular needs as professional learners within a caring, cohesive community (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Collabortive inquiry is one way for teachers to engage in collective learning working together to identify common challenges, analyze relevant data, and test out instructional approaches (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2017, 2018). Butler and Schnellert (2012) suggested that meaningful changes to teaching and learning often require that teachers be part of jointly designing their own learning to ensure it is locally situated and critically examines their practice. However, the role of collaboration in teacher learning is complex and requires a flexible system in which teachers can engage differently depending on their needs. Experts suggest that too much collaboration can be stifling and too little collaboration can be isolating; it needs to be just enough for teachers to receive the stimulation and support from their colleagues (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Others have focused on the need for iterative cycles of knowledge generation through accessing resources to inform practice and to advance teachers’ own learning (Butler & Schnellert, 2012). 21 As with PLCs, simply establishing groups for collabortive inquiry does not necessarily translate into learning toward meaningful changes in practice. For example, Mockler and Groundwater-Smith (2015) caution that collaborative inquiry may actually hinder genuine learning for teachers when they are celebrated just for taking part in collaborative inquiry, but are really using the time and space to re-emphasize current practice and beliefs instead of engaging in genuine critique and reflection. Mockler and Groundwater-Smith suggested that only when teachers acknowledge and accept “unwelcome truths” can they position themselves to rethink dimensions of practice (p. 603). They argued that a sense of critical reflection is an essential component of collaborative inquiry stating, “[it] opens the door to professional formation and (real) development, contributes to local knowledge production, stimulates teachers’ curiosity about learning, and fosters dynamic, collaborative learning communities” (p. 612). Although collaborative learning opportunities hold potential for significant learning, there are drawbacks and challenges to these structures. Mockler (2013) noted that collaborative learning opportunities have the potential to be misused in the current education system. For example, she described how professional development programs have often been re-badged to look and sound like collaborative inquiry, in order to meet the needs of policy makers and educational researchers (Mockler, 2013). However, these programs tend to resemble the more mechanistic and linear style of professional learning that does not involve teachers in the inquiry process, nor allow for teachers to guide their own learning journey. In addition, Mockler (2013) described a scenario where setting up this kind of professional learning, under the guise of collaborative inquiry, has been positioned as a remedy to address the “’crisis’ of teacher quality by measuring and qualifying teachers work and [attributing] blame when students fail to meet certain standards” (p. 36). Using professional learning as an evaluative measure perpetuates the 22 notion that teaching is merely a technical and instrumental set of skills, a standardized practice that should look the same for everyone to which all teachers should comply (Goodnough, 2010; Mockler, 2013; Musanti & Pence, 2010). Pushing against these narrow ideas about teaching are more robust and lively understandings of teaching as complex processes of accessing and coordinating tacit forms of knowledge as central to the ongoing practice of mindful teaching that is responsive and locally situated (Butler & Schnellert, 2012; Dewey, 1916; Macdonald & Shirley, 2009; Macintyre-Latta, 2013). Teacher learning is not merely the acquisition of knowledge, nor the compliance of teachers to enact a set of pre-determined standards, it is more complex, nuanced, and untidy—a process that Mockler (2011) argues is at the core of humanness. There are certainly challenges to engaging teachers in ongoing, teacher-directed, situated professional learning. Faced with the challenges of constructing rich and dynamic learning environments for and with their students, many teachers my not feel sufficiently prepared, ready, or able to take ownership over the learning needed for ongoing development and may choose to rely instead on perspectives from others, perhaps an outsider expert telling them what they should be learning. For example, if teachers decide to engage in a collaborative inquiry initiative without the knowledge or understanding that they need to come up with an area of focus for their inquiry, they may rely heavily on a facilitator to come up with inquiry questions for them. This may be due to lack of knowledge about the process or it may be a lack of experience in active engagement in learning processes, but either scenario may lead the teacher to not take ownership for their learning and not committing to the process of engaging in ongoing, teacher-directed professional learning (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2017). Additionally, as adult learners, teachers have the choice to resist or engage in learning, just like students do, and so collective 23 professional learning opportunities designed to foster teacher-directed learning may not always have the desired effects if teachers do not engage in learning with their colleagues (Muijs et al., 2014). Another challenge that may arise is referred to as over-assimilation, where a teacher who attends a professional learning opportunity and hears about teaching practices may see themselves as already engaging in the suggested practice or strategies and so assume they have not much to learn given they are already doing everything right in their practice. This tendency will likely lead to only superficial changes in their practice (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Muijs et al., 2014; Timperley, 2011). Current understanding of a PLC model. PLCs are increasingly encouraged as an effective structure for professional learning for teachers (DuFour et al, 2005). Underpinning the notion of PLCs is a social constructivist assumption of learning combined with increasing popularity of collaborative learning in the workplace. Emerging from the research on learning organizations in the business world, PLCs represent the commitments and aspirations of school organizations toward becoming sustainable learning cultures (Mitchell & Sackney, 2009, 2011). Within the theoretical framework of a PLC, teachers are assumed to be professionals with knowledge and expertise to share, and that sharing their knowledge and expertise in community offers greater impacts than learning alone. The words, professional, learning, and community, were specifically chosen to feed into the model Richard DuFour and colleagues (1998) coined as a PLC. The word ‘professional’ describes someone with expertise, ‘learning’ suggests ongoing action paired with curiosity and ‘community’ suggests a group linked by a common purpose (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour et al., 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). Stoll and Seashore Louis (2007) explained that in the 24 1990s the emphasis was on building professional communities of teachers and the term learning was added to indicate a focus on improvement within communities. The PLC model encourages teachers to take ownership of their own learning as they learn with and from others in ways that are meaningful, relevant to their practice, and impactful. Servage (2008) believed that throughout the school year educators who are members of a PLC are focused on their learning, while utilizing an effective discuss, reflect, revise model of communication within their community, in order to continually improve student learning. Ideally, teachers will have enough collaborative time to engage one another in purposeful dialogue through open-ended conversations oriented to critical and reflective dialogue and teaching and learning (Servage, 2008). One of the challenges of the PLC model is that it can mean different things to different people. For example, in this dissertation I have relied on Stoll and Seashore Louis’ (2007) definition of PLCs as a professional learning opportunity to create cohesive communities based on collective knowledge and caring relationships. Stoll and Seashore Louis recognize the complexity of PLCs and, in an effort to deepen understanding of them, analyzed theoretical and empirical literature to explore how to develop PLCs in ways that are impactful for teachers. Their definition of a PLC, with an emphasis on the importance of caring relationships and collective learning, was a good fit for my study wherein I was exploring teachers’ experiences from a relational perspective. In the following review of PLC case studies, it is apparent that there is not a standard definition for PLCs (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011), but a common understanding that PLCs provide educators with a structure for on-going professional conversations about practice. In the next section I provide a review of case studies of PLCs. Although findings are not always generalizable beyond the boundaries of the case that was 25 studied, there are common features and characteristics of PLCs that became apparent as I read across these studies that provide a general overview of the current landscape of case study research on PLCs. I focused my review using the perspective of teacher professional learning, outlining the ways case study research has offered practical insights about the focus of current empirical research and the findings on teacher learning associated with participating in PLCs. 2.2 A Review of Case Study Research on Professional Learning Communities Professional learning is documented as having the potential to enhance teaching innovation (Timperley, 2011), aid curricular and teacher education reform initiatives, (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) and impact student learning (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). But in what ways are teachers experiencing professional learning within PLCs? How are teachers learning and to what depth? How can teachers and other school leaders ensure they are setting up a framework for professional learning that increases the likelihood of enhancing student learning on a long-term basis? What does the current empirical research tell us about how professional learning is being implemented and perceived by teachers across international educational contexts? To more fully answer these questions as they relate to my research on teachers’ experiences of professional learning in PLCs, I oriented my review on current case study research of PLCs with a specific focus on teacher learning. Through this review, I found several common themes that emerged across all the studies—the importance of shared leadership, a focus on teaching practices, the use of data to inform practice, and a sense of teacher efficacy were important in terms of how teachers experienced their learning within a PLC. The studies for this review come from a literature search of case study research on PLCs on ERIC (EBSCO) database for journal articles published between January, 2015 and April, 26 2019. I included the search terms professional learning communities and case studies. The intent of the search was to gain access to peer-reviewed, published studies. Only studies published in English were included. The results of this search produced 52 journal article titles of case studies on PLCs over a four-year period (January 2015- April 2019). Of those 52 journal articles, two did not include enough research methodology in the article to be included in the review (Asher & Nichols, 2016; Baker & Bloom, 2017) and one article was not accessible (Eley, 2017). In this review I focused on the remaining 49 studies produced by the search. The purpose of this review was to focus on empirical case study research in order to identify trends in PLC research in relation to teacher professional learning and to identify promising areas for further research. With this in mind, I examine the current research to describe the area of focus and the findings in each study produced by the search. When looking across the studies, I made connections between areas of focus to create a synthesis of the research in this review. In all the studies there was a PLC framework used for professional learning. That framework was structured differently in each study, but all consisted of the main components of a PLC, which were educators working together within a community in a professional learning capacity. The review provides an international perspective on research on teacher learning in PLCs with case studies from North America (26), Asia (12), Australia (4), Europe (5), and Africa (2). The majority of the North American studies are from the United States (23), with three studies in Canada. In most of the studies, the researchers used interviews, qualitative surveys, reflective journals and field notes to collect data from sample sizes of participants that ranged from three to 60. After reading all of the studies, I began to identify common themes that emerged across the studies. One of the common themes I noted was that PLCs seem to provide opportunities for 27 shared leadership, including the importance of engaging with others in a responsive way. In addition, a number of case studies highlighted the importance of participating teachers using teaching practices and/or student data as catalysts for engaging in learning with their PLC colleagues. Finally, a sense of increased teacher efficacy seemed to be an important benefit, or outcome, of teacher engagement in PLCs, and a sense of collective efficacy emerged over time as teachers learned to collaborate with each other through their work in the PLC. Shared leadership as an innovative organizational aspect of PLCs. Shared leadership among teachers was a common focus across many of the case studies reviewed (Ahn, 2017; Carpenter, 2015; Chen & Wang, 2015; Cherrington & Thornton, 2015; Choi Fung Tam, 2015a; Cooper et al., 2016; Hallum et al., 2015; Joliffe, 2015; Keamy, 2016; LeChasseur, Mayer, Welton and Donaldson, 2016; Kelly & Cherkowski, 2015; Ngalawa, Simmt & Glanfield, 2015; Nicholson et al., 2016; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Tam, Chan, Li & Pow, 2018). For example, in a case study of PLCs in three secondary schools in Midwestern USA, Carpenter (2015) explored the supportive and shared leadership structures as a function of school culture. A significant finding of this study was that a shared leadership culture was important when creating policies and procedures for professional learning. The researcher explained that one case study school had well-defined continuous improvement that involved teachers and administrators working together, which seemed to empower teachers to focus on learning improvement through a collective effort of experts. In comparison, Carpenter (2015) described that the other two case study schools expressed frustration with the lack of teacher and administrator interaction in the PLCs noting, “The lack of shared and supportive leadership for the improvement process created a hostile environment where teacher isolation persisted and there was no expectation for continuous improvement” (Carpenter, 2015, p. 688). In addition, the two other case study 28 schools were described by the researcher as having “a culture of distrust, a lack of openness to improvement and a focus on teacher accountability” (Carpenter, 2015, p. 689). In a second study involving 60 participants who were involved in an existing, well-established PLC over the period of a year, Carpenter (2017) described the importance of shared workspace and how PLC participants sustained their collaboration through continual, productive professional contact with colleagues. In Chen and Wang’s (2015) longitudinal case study in Taiwan, the researchers explored the evolution of a PLC implemented to engage teachers in curricular innovation. University professors were involved in the four-year study by guiding the curricular designs and overseeing the evaluation of the curriculum for the 11 participants. They found that capacity-building, a strengthening of confidence and competence in teaching, grew gradually as shared leadership within the PLC allowed for new curricular knowledge to be mobilized. Chen and Wang (2015) illustrated the need for a long-term study in order to document the collective efficacy that developed by the end of the third year. The researchers explained, “The learning process through this collaborative project empowered the participants to assume shared responsibility and make collective efforts to achieve … common goals” (Chen & Wang, 2015, p. 435). The researchers described the participants’ need to nurture team spirit; however, the leadership skills required to create an interdependent PLC structure, rather than a top-down one, evolved gradually. The importance of developing identity as teacher leaders within a shared leadership framework and shifting mindsets about innovative organizational structures were evident in some studies. For instance, in Cherrington and Thornton’s (2015) exploratory case study seeking out what factors contributed to effective PLCs in ECE (early childhood education) in New Zealand, four different PLC clusters with different foci were investigated. The researchers found 29 through group interviews and reflective journals, as well as recordings of the PLC sessions, that although the PLC model was a helpful structure to guide conversations, further time was needed to determine if shifting mindsets of teachers about their role in leadership is a possible outcome of participating in PLCs. In Keamy’s (2016) Australian case study, the concept of a shared leadership team involving teachers and administrators, and the development of collaborative approaches through dialogue was researched over a period of six weeks. Data were collected through questionnaires, focus group discussions, and journal entries. Keamy (2016) draws on the concept of relational power to describe how trust can be built within PLCs in order to address feelings of inequality that surfaced through observed conversations. Similarly, in LeChasseur et al.’s (2016) study in the USA, the researchers focused on the tensions bought about by teachers’ interest in engaging in inquiry through their PLC and the school demands of accountability. More than 300 semi-structured interviews were conducted over a period of three years at six schools and analyzed through a constant comparative method. LeChasseur et al.’s (2016) findings suggest that the school environments that encouraged teacher leadership and communicated support for engagement in inquiry impacted the actions, attitudes, and understandings of teachers and administrators. The need to establish trusting and constructive relationships through developing teacher leaders within a PLC framework was highlighted in Cooper et al.’s (2016) study about organizational change. The researchers in this study collected data from 11 participants through videos, interviews and artifacts (e.g. student work, data, lesson plans) and used descriptive coding to analyse the data. Cooper et al. (2016) found that teacher leadership is not a linear, step-by-step process of development, but rather a dynamic, complex journey that is influenced heavily by the context within which teachers are working. This research was grounded in 30 Kotter’s (1996) organizational change theory, in combination with Opfer and Pedder’s (2011) complex systems theory. Similarly, Nicholson et al.’s (2016) study was guided by the belief that teacher leaders have a significant influence over their colleagues to improve practice, exemplify learning, and engage in continuous reflection. This case study focused on one teacher leader network (TLN) meeting that lasted for five hours. The researchers used inductive and deductive approaches to analyze 15 audiotaped discussions that occurred between participants during the meeting. Nicholson et al. (2016) determined the PLC meetings provided the time and space for participants to build trusting relationships that allowed for the safe thinking space for teacher leaders to co-construct knowledge together. In another example, Ahn’s (2017) study reported on findings from a case study of a Korean public high school involving 19 participants. Data were collected through observations and interviews and analyzed through a repetitive review process in order to identify patterns in the data. Findings indicate that teacher leaders were necessary to launch and sustain a PLC initiative in the school. The researcher found that it was in the role of the teacher leader that trust and respect among colleagues was perpetuated and the PLC strengthened due to the relational connections. In a recent case study conducted in Hong Kong, Tam et al. (2018) found that a focus on developing human capital within PLCs through different levels of leadership improved the PLC participants’ understanding and knowledge of technology integration. Two aspects of shared leadership—developing a common purpose and necessity of trust—were evident in the findings of two of the studies reviewed. In a small case study on PLCs carried out in Western Canada, Kelly and Cherkowski (2015) documented and examined teachers’ experiences with collaborative teaching. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with eight participants of a PLC. They found that shifting mindsets toward 31 collaborative teaching seems to happen as conditions are fostered for teachers to feel a sense of safety and trust with their colleagues. Similarly, Hallum et al. (2015) focused on trust and collaboration at the team level through their case study conducted with two case study schools in a western state in USA. The researchers examined trust among teachers engaged in PLCs and its effects on teacher team collaboration using focus group interviews. They found that collaborative team trust was developed when teachers felt that responsibilities were fulfilled and mutual kindness and patience were given. The researchers explained that it was only when the principal showed competence and openness with the PLC that there was an obvious increase in the teachers’ benevolence, reliability, and trust. They explained that as the principal showed trust in the teachers’ professional judgment to be a part of the collective decision-making team, the whole PLC moved forward towards collective innovation. They also noted that the successful PLCs praised their principals for their trust and respect of the PLC teams, and specifically noted their lack of micromanaging the PLCs. One participant explained, “People blossom when they have a little freedom to be who they are” (Hallum et al., 2015, p. 202). Newberry, Sanchez and Clark (2018) conducted a study in USA that focused on the interactional aspects or features of teacher professional relationships that may influence teacher change in professional development situations. The initial study was designed to explore mentorship between two teachers over the period of 14 weeks, but after initial thematic coding, the researchers were drawn to the evolution of the relationship as an important part of learning. Their findings suggest the need to challenge the more structural approaches to professional learning and devote more attention to growing relationships that may foster sustainable teacher growth. Similarly, in Joliffe’s (2015) case study that consisted of a networked PLC in two secondary schools and ten primary schools in England, the researcher found that in order to implement collaborative learning in the classroom, teachers 32 themselves need to work collaboratively with colleagues in a PLC. One of the key elements that developed through the implementation of the PLC was teachers learning to share and combine organizational resources (ie. funding, blocks of time) to be able to better innovate in their teaching. The concept of shared leadership was also evident in a case study conducted in a small rural community in Kitamburo, Tanzania, with shared leadership understood as involving the whole community. Ngalawa, Simmt and Glanfield (2015) explored the question, How do schools and communities in Tanzania work together to generate learning communities? This four-year study involved one primary school in a rural community in Tanzania. Initial data were collected from 15 teachers through interviews and further data was collected from seven members of the community through group interviews and analyzed through an iterative process. A significant finding was that community leadership to support the work of the teachers was an essential catalyst in the sustainability of a PLC. Shared leadership was not always a positive condition or outcome of PLCs. For example, in a study carried out in Hong Kong, Choi Fung Tam (2015a) examined teachers’ beliefs and feelings of empowerment that comes with shared leadership in a PLC through interviews and observations on teachers’ beliefs about their own learning and their influence on their colleagues in a PLC. The 18-month study included 27 participants (13 teachers in the Chinese department and 14 teachers in the English department). The researcher concluded that the teachers in the Chinese department believed they gained capacity from PLC meetings with their colleagues, but the teachers in the English department did not believe interacting with their colleagues fostered learning. A participant from the Chinese teacher department stated, “The bouncing ideas off each other are the benefits of collaborative work. We can come up with many innovative knowledge and skills and make inquiry by examining the feasibility of some 33 action research” (Choi Fung Tam, 2105a, p. 429). In contrast, a participant from the English teacher department explained, “The teamwork interrupts the professional autonomy of individual … a waste of time and energy. The collegial works induce unhappiness and tension as a result” (Choi Fung Tam, 2105a, p. 433). The two different viewpoints were indicative of the others’ opinions from the respective departments and were explained by the researcher as indicative of the existing culture of the departments, causing an interesting dynamic when considering organizational structures. In a different perspective of shared leadership, Sperandio and Kong (2018) described the importance of having an external leader to provide in-depth development of PLCs for schools, rather than leave it to the educators in the schools to create a PLC framework. Focus group interviews were conducted in 122 International Baccalaurate schools worldwide and open coding analysis led to the finding that the PLCs in this study had a clear vision linked to the school communities. In addition, Brown (2016) considered shared leadership in a different way than the majority of the studies reviewed in this dissertation. When exploring the question, What supports did the elementary principal in a school implement to increase student achievement?, Brown (2016) uncovered the strength of a shared leadership model between the principal, teachers, and the parent community in order to develop a school culture in one school in the United States. The PLC framework in that example included parents in the educational community and developed a cohesive group of people interested in ensuring success for the students. Through interviews and document evaluation, the researcher determined student achievement was directly linked to engaging a strong parent group in the community of the school. Responsiveness to teacher learning and/or student learning as an aspect of PLC leadership. Leadership within PLCs was also expressed as a way of engaging in a PLC with a 34 sense of responsiveness to others’ learning needs and interests, whether carried out by principals, teachers, or external facilitators (Burke & Collier, 2017; De Neve & Devos, 2017; Hairon, Wee Pin Goh & Siew Kheng Chua, 2015; Hands, Guzar & Rodrique, 2015; Margalef & Pareja Roblin, 2016; Reed & Swaminathan, 2017; Schaap & Bruijn, 2018; Steeg, 2016). Reed and Swaminathan (2017) referred to contextually responsive leadership (CRL) to describe how one principal created a culture of teaching learning in a single case study in the United States. The researchers collected data through interviews and observations over a period of a year and furthered their study by analyzing the data through descriptive coding, topic coding and analytic coding. Reed and Swaminathan (2017) reported that participants were responsive to the needs of the school by showing a significant amount of creativity coming up with new solutions to existing complex problems. Similarly, Steeg (2016) noted in her study examining a team of teachers participating in a video-based PLC, which focused on literacy instruction, that when using video for reflective purposes, supportive and responsive exchanges bolstered teacher reflection and learning in important ways. The four participants met monthly for one-hour PLC sessions over a period of five months and watched videos of teaching practice while inquiring into their own practice through parallel reflection. The participants were observed to responsively scaffold their colleagues learning through collegial and affirming ways of reflecting together. Steeg (2016) used Vygotsky’s socio-cultural learning theory as a foundational design for this study. In Schaap and Bruijn’s (2018) three year study in the Netherlands, the researchers found that explicitly creating reflective dialogues and ownership of learning over time created conditions for the PLCs to flourish. Two other studies focused on the merging of theory and practice in PLCs through examining teacher responsiveness to students’ learning needs. Burke and Collier (2017) explored 35 challenges teachers face when they engage in PLCs while trying to figure out how they can teach social justice, action, and agency effectively to their students. Data were collected through focus group interviews and observations and analyzed on an on-going basis in order to represent an account of the participants’ experiences. The 12 participants in this school indicated they had challenges fitting current educational theory into pedagogy that would work successfully with their students, while being responsive to their needs. They described their participation in collaborative inquiry to reconcile pedagogical and theoretical understandings, and how this led to their ability to merge theory and practice. Similarly, De Neve and Devos (2017) carried out a comparative case study of three different PLC cases in order to determine how PLCs can aid or hamper professional learning of beginning teachers as they merge theory and practice of differentiated instruction (DI). The 14 participants were part of three PLCs which were specifically chosen because they were at different stages of development. De Neve and Devos (2017) found that the PLC environment can provide the time and space for theory and practice to merge for beginning teachers as they navigate what DI can look like in a classroom setting. Participating in a PLC was essential for teachers to reflect on their responsiveness to their students’ learning and adapt their teaching to meet the needs of their students; however, the stage of development of the PLC affected the depth of teacher learning in this study. In three studies researchers focused specifically on the facilitator’s role in PLCs, and the need to be responsive to the members of the PLC in terms of providing a framework that is flexible and creating an environment where teachers are open to taking risks in their teaching practices. Margalef and Pareja Roblin (2016) studied four university PLC facilitators in Spain to gain understanding of how facilitators use strategies to support teacher learning. Interviews and document analysis of facilitators’ reflective journals were inductively and deductively analyzed. 36 Margalef and Pareja Roblin (2016) found that PLC facilitators must continuously adapt to the needs of the PLC and, at the same time, generate opportunities for teacher learning. Two challenges identified by facilitators were the lack of time to engage with the PLC members and the necessity to avoid the image of being an expert who is in the position to teach the teachers rather than facilitate their learning. In Canada, Hands et al. (2015) examined what types of behaviours allow facilitators to sustain engagement in the learning process while continuing to be responsive to the needs of the teachers within a PLC. Data were collected through reflective writing and semi-structured interviews with 12 participants and analyzed based on the concepts delineated in the literature. They found that effective facilitators exhibited behaviours involving building shared purpose within the PLC, navigating group dynamics that may impact the groups’ work, and encouraging the learning that was happening with each teacher. Hairon et al. (2015) specifically examined the role of teacher leaders as facilitators within a PLC structure. The researchers conducted an ethnographic case study in Singapore to determine how PLC facilitators as teacher leaders support PLC conversations. Through observations of the PLC sessions, the researchers determined that teacher leaders as PLC facilitators can support PLC conversations in positive, effective ways that were responsive to the learning needs of the teachers. In an additional study, Hairon (2016) focused on the facilitator’s role in supporting PLC conversations through participant observations of three PLC facilitators over a period of three months. He provided a framework that facilitators can follow that was responsive to the needs of the teachers and encouraged PLC members to engage in the community, promote collective learning, and enable change in teaching practice. A focus on teaching practice through participation in a PLC. A second theme that emerged from the review of this research was that many of the studies focused on, or reported 37 on, teachers’ classroom practices in connection to the PLC. For example, teachers in PLCs often make time to observe each other teaching (Ahmed Hersi, Horan, & Lewis, 2016; Gee & Whaley, 2016; Tan & Caleon, 2016). Gee and Whaley (2016) researched teachers’ experiences with lesson study PLCs within USA with a group of 16 elementary teachers over the period of two years. Semi-structured interviews and video taping of lessons were collected and analyzed. Participants indicated the importance of collaboration and learning from others through examining student responses to specific lessons, but explained that their jobs did not provide the time needed to deeply examine teaching and learning. In a similar study, Tan and Caleon (2016) explored the concept of learning study in connection with their PLC initiative in Singapore. A learning study is different from a lesson study, emphasizing the use and understanding of theory behind the pedagogy. Four biology teachers participated in four meetings which were video-taped. Interviews, field notes, reflective journals, and a questionnaire were also collected and analyzed in this study. The researchers found that collaborative problem solving, the main component of learning study, was a challenging process and needed to be carefully facilitated by the researcher-facilitator in this study. The researchers noted the importance of the facilitator to remain flexible and open to deviating from their initial plans to meet the needs of the teachers. In a study conducted in the United States, Ahmed et al. (2016) examined how teachers and specialists can collaborate together in a classroom to learn from one another. In addition to examining the learning teachers experienced when involved in a co-teaching triad, a focus on the successes and tensions was emphasized. Data were collected from three educators who worked together in one grade five classroom over the period of six months in the form of interviews, observations, and analysis of planning documents. Ahmed et al. (2016) found that the relationships were different for each of the educators involved and the emerging relationship 38 dynamics seemed to affect the participants’ willingness to collaborate and learn from one another. Two studies (Phusavat, Delahunty, Kess and Kropsu-Vehkapera, 2017; Soslau, 2015) focused on student teachers and how participating in a PLC focusing on teaching practice may strengthen their teaching abilities for the future. In Phusavat et al.’s (2017) study conducted in Bangkok, the researchers examined how developing a PLC may strengthen in-service teacher training within the Bangkok context. Over a period of two years, observations and interviews were conducted with the participants to gain understanding about the key activities relating to the actual teaching and learning that was happening in classrooms. Phusavat et al. (2017) concluded that PLCs provide a potential alternative for the current in-service teacher training program. In addition, the researchers suggest PLCs are most valuable when connected to the teaching happening in the classroom over a period of time. Soslau (2015) focused on the interactions between student teachers and their field instructors as they engaged in dialogue about their teaching practice and their learning through a PLC framework. Six participants (three dyads consisting of one field instructor and one student teacher) engaged in a 16-week study in the USA. Interviews were used to gather perceptions of their conversations about their learning within the classroom environment. Soslau (2015) found that even though the field instructors intended to create conversations that were non-hierarchical, the student teachers still interpreted a sense of control by the field instructor. When examining teaching practice connected to learning happening in a PLC, some researchers focused on the participants sharing specific measurements or artifacts to determine what was occurring in classroom practice to guide their learning. Cohen, Schult, Brown, and Grossman (2016) used a Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO) to 39 measure the quality of teaching in a study conducted in the USA with 27 teachers over the period of two years. The findings suggest moving away from a one size fits all model to one that allows for differentiated professional learning for teachers. When new curriculum standards were introduced in the USA, Friedrichsen and Barnett (2018) conducted an instrumental case study with six biology teachers to determine how to negotiate their understanding and knowledge to re-design lessons, assessment practices, and resources. From analysis of interview transcripts and researcher field notes they found that although the participants developed tools to aid the new curriculum, they also experienced tensions as they adjusted their teaching and assessment practices. In a study conducted in South Africa, Chauraya and Brodie (2017) had four high school mathematics teachers video record lessons throughout a year-long pilot study and discuss the lessons in a PLC. Similar to Cohen et al.’s (2016) and Friedrichsen and Barnett’s (2018) findings, teachers in this study made different levels of shifts in their teaching through participation in the PLC. In a case study of seven primary teachers in China, researchers examined the use of shared knowledge of artifacts (student work, data, lesson plans) to further growth in teaching, exploring how the use of knowledge artifacts promotes learning and using new pedagogy as well as stimulating professional dialogue within PLCs (Qiao & Yu, 2016). The findings highlight the lack of opportunity to learn through trial-and-error when working in the classroom on new pedagogy. Qiao and Yu (2016) conclude that there needs to be more opportunities for teachers to actively participate in their learning through PLCs, while feeling empowered to step out of their comfort zone to explore new ways of teaching in the classroom. Similarly, in Damjanovic and Blank’s (2018) study of preschool teachers, the participants analyzed documentation (anecdotal records, children’s work samples, and photographs) to aid reflection on their students’ learning 40 and their teaching practices. Data were collected through observations, interviews, and the teachers’ documentation of student learning. The researchers found that the use of documentation was beneficial for the participants to discuss their practice and identify areas they wanted to continue the develop. Two studies focused on specific technology that may increase teacher engagement for improved professional learning within a PLC context. Psiropoulos et al. (2016) examined the use of iPads as a way to connect teachers through an online PLC in the United Arab Emirates through a six-month study involving 16 instructors as participants. Interviews, participant observation, and an online discussion forum were analyzed using thematic and content analysis. Psiropoulos et al. (2016) found that participants experienced a heightened sense of anxiety about integrating a new form of technology in their teaching. In addition, the participants reported they would have valued time to learn more about the technology and needed clearer expectations about their engagement in professional learning through iPads. In another study in Hong Kong, Lai, Lim, and Wang (2016) explored the potential of using digital teaching portfolios to showcase assessment and learning to build a PLC in a higher education institution. In this collective case study four participants completed a questionnaire and participated in an individual interview. Coding led to emerging themes through comparative analysis. Lai et al. (2016) found the participants aligned their portfolios with underlying beliefs about teaching and learning, which provided a context to engage with others in discussions. Using portfolios within a PLC framework provided the participants with social learning opportunities with colleagues. A focus on data through participation in a PLC. Case study research on PLCs has been used to explore how the use of student data (e.g. student achievement, artifacts of development, as well as other data) influenced dialogue and areas of focus within the PLC. In 41 two studies in the United States (Huguet, Farrell & Marsh, 2017; Marsh, Bertrand & Huguet, 2015), the focus was on how principals design data-use PLCs and the role of coaches within data-driven PLCs. Huguet et al.’s (2017) study sought to examine the design tools and routines used by principals that may influence how teachers participate in the PLC. The researchers conducted individual interviews with 20 participants and focus group interviews with an additional 17 participants over one year. Data were iteratively coded and analyzed within and across cases. Huguet et al. (2017) suggested that teachers’ use of data in PLCs would be more beneficial if used flexibly, and if teachers have the ability to co-construct data-use tools that would be more meaningful to their daily work. Marsh et al.’s (2015) study involved a year-long comparative case study of six middle schools using cultural historical activity theory to guide the research design. 21 participants were involved in the study and data were collected through individual interviews, focus group interviews, observations of PLC sessions, and monthly surveys. Marsh et al. (2015) concluded that coaches were beneficial in mediating how teachers were responding to data by providing guidance in how teachers could alter their instructional practices with consideration to the data they were analyzing in the PLC sessions. Christman, Ebby, and Edmunds (2016) examined a PLC in the United States with a focus on examining processes of feedback cycles in order to give teachers more guidance when looking at data. The researchers state that it is not enough to give teachers time to analyze data, but they need to have guidance with making sense of what they are seeing and how they can change their practices based on the data from students. Through observing 14 PLC sessions over the course of one year, and then choosing three teachers for extended individual interviews, they found the importance of the role of creating dissonance within collegial discussion to support participants moving beyond surface instructional changes to substantial improvements. The 42 researchers concluded that teacher interpretation of data can give teachers the time and guidance to develop their own theories of pedagogy (Christman et al.2016). In the Netherlands, Bolhuis, Schildkmap, and Voogt (2016) conducted a single case study to investigate how PLCs can analyze data together by creating data teams that ground teachers’ learning in practice, rather than solely abstract theory. The seven participants made up a data team which met 11 times over a period of eight months. Individual interviews were conducted twice in the eight months. Through analysis of observation notes from the meetings, interviews, field notes, and artifacts, Bolhuis et al. (2016) found that conversations in the data team grounded the learning by analyzing data to change practice, which may increase relevance of teacher learning. In contrast, participants in Sims and Penny’s (2015) study of a failed PLC captured participants’ sense of frustration with their PLC experience. Using structured interviews and observations of three PLC sessions they explored the unique features of the failed PLC to understand how PLCs can be more successful in the future. They concluded the PLC was too narrowly focused on data and lacked sufficient time for teachers to collaborate and build shared leadership. They explained that it was the organizational hindrances that held back the PLC from being successful. Teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy. The final theme that emerged from this review was the idea that participating in PLCs can lead to a stronger sense of efficacy as teachers grow their learning and connections with their colleagues. In several studies, the focus was on understanding ways that participating in PLCs influenced the level of efficacy, the belief that one possesses the ability to perform their job effectively (Janssen, 2004), as experienced by individual teachers and/or the collective PLC (Moore, 2018; Owen, 2015, 2016; Sindberg, 2016). The participants in Moore’s (2018) study gained a sense of collective efficacy as they critically 43 reflected on their own sense of cultural awareness and how they could engage their colleagues to become agents of change in their schools. The participants read critical literature and discussed within the PLC how they were examining their beliefs in relation to the literature. Ten participants took part in the study over one summer as they took a masters’ level course in education. Moore (2018) analyzed written reflections and transcripts from interviews through deductive coding and found that engaging within a PLC in forms of critical reflection was beneficial to empower teachers through increasing their knowledge and awareness. In Owen’s (2015) mixed methods study, the researcher found that teachers appreciated and grew from the chance to learn and understand from the different philosophies that they each brought to the PLC discussions. They found that deep learning conversations emerged as participants grew in their confidence about their abilities to learn together toward improving student learning. As part of a larger quantitative study, Owen (2016) carried out a case study of three schools in Australia to examine PLCs as a space to explore the concept of teacher teams, which consisted of two or three teachers working together to co-plan, co-teach and co-assess their students. In addition, Owen (2015) found that teacher well-being increased with participation in teacher team initiatives, and that this led to improved student well-being among these teachers as they experienced an increase in collective efficacy through collaboration and communication among the teachers. In another study, Owen (2016) focused specifically on PLC characteristics that promote teacher learning through reinvigorating passion in teaching, increasing efficacy, nurturing teacher well-being, and noticing instances of flourishing in three schools that were considered innovative. Data included document studies, surveys, individual and focus group interviews with 15 teachers. Owen (2016) found that characteristics, such as cultivating positive relationships and a sense of efficacy and belonging, can promote passion in teaching, which may 44 ultimately lead to well-being and a sense of flourishing in teachers. Sindberg (2016) researched specific elements that may lead to a successful PLC for music teachers in the United States, collecting data through field notes, semi-structured interviews, video excerpts, observations, and artifacts over a period of two years. In this study, collective efficacy increased through the development of a collaborative culture. Sindberg (2016) noted the important connection between emotions and relationships in the work of teaching that likely impact professional learning. 2.3 Summary of the Review My intention in this review was to offer a global perspective on current case study research on PLCs with a focus on teacher professional learning. Although there were a few exceptions, most of the case studies in this review examined teacher learning in PLCs that happened over a relatively short period of time, from several weeks to several months. Only a few case studies of PLCs tracked learning over more than a year, such as the two year PLC experience (Sindberg, 2016) and a study carried out over three years (Schaap & Brujin, 2018). In general, participating in PLCs seemed to provide opportunities for shared leadership that may be expressed differently by various teachers in different contexts. For some teachers, shared leadership emerges as a sense of collective ownership over their learning toward improving educational experiences for their students. For other teachers, this shared leadership is expressed as a responsiveness to others’ learning within the PLC. Teachers appreciate opportunities to engage in observing one another teach and to carry out lesson and learning studies as part of the work of PLCs. In these ways, “pedagogical loneliness” (Lieberman & Mace, 2010, p. 85) can be replaced with professional collective learning by literally opening classroom doors and making private practice public. In general, participating in PLCs has been shown to contribute to 45 increasing a sense of individual and collective efficacy for teaching. Finally, a small group of studies provided interesting insights on the importance of connection, relationships, and the role of emotions in teacher learning in PLCs. Most of the studies described innovative teaching strategies or organizational structures developed for PLC participation designed for organizational improvements. The concept of leadership as a structural component of PLCs was highlighted as being beneficial to solidify group norms, increase sustainability of the learning opportunity, and establish a safe space for educators to learn with and from each other. Many of the studies in this review focused on teachers learning new pedagogy and innovative practice, changing practice to meet the needs of their students and impacting student achievement, all of which are important aspects for ongoing improvement of practice in schools. The findings in these case studies reflect the previous findings in much research on PLCs of a lack of time and resources as challenges or obstacles to effective collaborative work in PLCs (Hord, 2004; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2006). In general, much of the research continues to focus on the technical or instrumental aspects of implementation and effectiveness of PLC structures. In terms of the more human, relational side of professional learning in PLCs, a few studies have advanced findings about the importance of focusing on emotions, a sense of connection, and the importance of positive relational capacities such as trust, support, and kindness, as well as the importance of feeling valued and the importance of diverse perspectives to create conditions for learning (Hairon, et al., 2017; Kooy, 2015; Ning, Lee & Lee, 2015; Newberry et al., 2018). With my case study of teacher professional learning in a PLC from a relational perspective, I aimed to contribute to research on PLCs through a relational lens, building on research that highlights the benefits and potentials for deepening learning when 46 relationships are understood as central to the learning process, and so are encouraged, supported, and valued (Dirkx, 2006; Thayer-Bacon, 2010). In recent research, Hairon et al. (2017) suggested that “more empirical work is also needed to investigate intermediary effects of PLCs on school improvement processes that positively influence teacher knowledge, skills, beliefs, and teacher self-efficacy” (p. 80). With my research I aimed to contribute further understandings about the various ways that teachers learn in relation to others (Schnellert et al., 2015) and about how teachers make sense of what it means to build community with colleagues that creates conditions for them to learn, grow, and thrive in their work (Owen, 2016; Margalef & Pareja Roblin, 2016; Newberry et al., 2018). Using a relational lens to examine teachers’ experiences within PLCs may offer a more complex, multi-dimensional understanding of professional learning beyond what is already known about how to develop the structures for teachers to physically come together in school to talk about their practices. Aligned with Hairon et al.’s (2017) suggestion for more substantive theorization about the effects of PLCs, such as development in teacher knowledge, beliefs and practice, my research offers a new theoretical perspective on why and how teachers engage in professional learning through relational learning. Through offering a description of the experiences of professional learning from the perspective of teachers, my research provides new insights about the work of learning in PLCs that can offer answers to some of the current research questions about how to engage in authentic professional learning that is deep, relevant, and makes a positive impact on students/teachers at the school/district/system level (Harris & Jones, 2010). In the following section I provide an overview of the relational learning theoretical framework that guided my study. 47 2.4 A Closer Look at Characteristics of Relational Learning Relational learning theories shift the perspective from the current view of PLCs as primarily organizational structures for school improvement towards the relational aspects of connecting as a community as foundational for enriching and deepening the learning experiences within the PLC. Relational epistemology and a broader understanding of the concept of community offer new theoretical perspectives on concepts such as belonging, care, and the capacity to value differences as important aspects of PLCs. Caring, belonging, and valuing differences are characteristics of relationships that are evident in PLC research (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007) and community building literature (Hansen, 2011; Palmer, 2007). It was within these theoretical boundaries that I determined that the three characteristics would serve as a suitable foci for relational learning in this study. This study is timely and significant given the focus on relational learning, a contribution to the limited literature that exists regarding the connection between professional learning and the relational aspects that influence what it means to engage in ongoing professional learning (Kooy, 2015; Ning, Lee & Lee, 2015; Reeves, 2010; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). Relational epistemology: The nature of knowing. Knowledge and education are clearly connected in theory, practice, and curriculum (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008; Palmer, 2007; Thayer-Bacon, 2004). Epistemology refers to the beliefs that people hold about the nature of knowing and knowledge. Palmer (2007) suggested that epistemological beliefs are the foundation on which all education is built. Relational epistemology foregrounds the interactions of external and internal relations in the “social construction of epistemological beliefs” 48 (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008, p. 405), constructed with others through interactions in social contexts (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008; Palmer, 2007; Thayer-Bacon, 2004). Relational epistemological beliefs depend on internal and external influences (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008), assumed to be acting within an interconnected system of understanding, not isolated, disconnected acts (Dewey, 1916, p. 11). As people gain understanding of others’ perspectives and ideas they may choose to further build and change their own knowledge, or share, adapt, and further discuss knowledge in order to continually engage in the ongoing process of learning (Hansen, 2011). The internal (personal) and external (shared with others) relations of knowing are understood to be in constant movement as each person interacts within a community, and then retracts and processes knowledge individually. This flow of learning is necessary and can be seamless, as new knowledge is constructed while considering what is already known. Beliefs are important in how we carry out associated actions. For example, if a teacher believes knowledge is constructed with others and sees dialogue and joint meaning-making as central to the learning process, the teacher is more likely to enter into collegial communication with the intent to adapt or enhance assumptions, values, or understanding. Constructing knowledge with others often requires a shift in understanding or deep reflection of beliefs and assumptions to acknowledge other peoples’ perspectives (Thayer-Bacon, 2003). Parker Palmer (2007) suggested that an important feature of relational knowing is that it strengthens our human capacity for connectedness and emphasizes the need for community. In his view, people maintain both personal and social roles within a community and are not only affected by others, but also greatly affect others. Therefore, people are always in-relation with others, with a link between individual subjectivity and the role people play in connection to others (Thayer-Bacon, 2004) and in connection to the “great web of being on which all things 49 depend and the fact that our knowing of those things is helped, not hindered, by our being enmeshed in that web” (Palmer, 2007, p. 101). Experiencing knowledge construction in community can lead to strengthening of relationships as we recognize our interconnectedness and satisfy our human need to connect and re-connect. Humans seek connection with others through the noticing and appreciating of both similarities and differences among each other, as differences will always be present and offer much to discover, consider, reflect upon, and honour (Thayer-Bacon, 2003). Interacting, developing, and discussing knowledge within a social environment allows individuals to explore and critique different perspectives through the constant movement from external to internal processing. Relational epistemology assumes a connection between common ideas and also provides for inevitability of discomfort, unease and conflict as valuable parts of the process. Hansen (2011) described relational knowing as “real, vital and dynamic,” including when it is sometimes experienced as what he calls, bumpy terrain (Hansen, 2011, p. 3), often requiring self-awareness. Through this relational learning process, the individual and the community are in a constant state of analysis and evaluation of their beliefs, which can allow for a greater understanding of how individuals are situated in the world. Attempting to make relationships within community less difficult by avoiding conflict or expecting consensus consistently actually does a disservice to the members of community (Mayo, 2010), by taking away the ability to connect with others in an authentic way. Mayo (2010) explained, “we ought to embrace the discomfort of obstacles and understand our engagements with the world and others as fraught with difficulty” (p. 123). The fact that each person brings such a different perspective and view based on their own situated experience and understanding allows for exposure to diverse possibilities that may help to stimulate one’s own thinking. Biesta (2004) 50 argued that people become aware of their own assumptions through interactions with others and that this is necessary in order to establish common meanings and better relate to others, thereby prompting more self-reflection through interactions with others. Relationships within community. The function of a community is to connect and communicate in order to fulfill individual and collective needs of the members. There is a fundamental need that humans share—to belong to something greater than ourselves (Sergiovanni, 1994). The need for community is universal. A sense of belonging, of continuity, of being connected to others and their values make people’s lives more significant and, ultimately, increases the quality of life. Sergiovanni (1994) stated that the “potential for becoming a ‘we’ is stronger than the propensity to remain an ‘I’” (p. xvii). The bonding together of people and the connecting aspects of shared values are the defining characteristics of communities. Community has been considered as a social construction of humanity; actions of one member depend upon, and take into consideration, the expectations, approvals, and condemnations of the other members (Dewey, 1916; Noddings, 2003). A member cannot act alone while he or she is a member of a community because all activities are performed with the knowledge of others’ activities (Dewey, 1916; Hanson, 2011; Palmer, 1993). Once a community begins to depend to a greater extent on the norms and activities of those outside the community to guide decisions within, it loses agency and needs to evaluate the strength of the community as a functional unit (Dewey, 1916; Sergiovanni, 1994). Building on the work of theorists such as Dewey, Hanson, and Palmer, I assume the nature of community means that knowledge and beliefs are communal, since the self is communal in nature (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008; Hodkinson, Biesta & James, 2007). According to Palmer (1993), in order to know something, a member of the community 51 unconsciously relies on the expertise of the community in order to draw upon the collective knowledge in which the community is rooted and agree upon shared understandings (Hairon et al., 2017; Palmer, 1993). Although curiosity and control may distance members from one another, knowledge and understanding can lead to a sense of interdependency, bringing people closer together through the bonds of their relationships (Palmer, 1993) as they seek common understanding from the many diverse perspectives (Mayo, 2010). Community building is not easy work – it takes a daily practice of inquiry and openness (Stengal, 2010). If conditions create more combat than community-building, and members alienate more than they connect, there is little to sustain the community (Palmer, 1993). Palmer (1993) explains the hope is to know “the wholeness in the midst of our torn world” and connect more than disconnect (p. x). Common, community, and communication: Seeing the connection. The connection between the words: “common, community and communication” are more than a verbal tying together of words – they link to a common understanding (Dewey, 1916, p. 4). Typically, members live in a community with others who have common interests, beliefs and aspirations, and communication is the way they develop their common understandings, or like-mindedness (Dewey, 1916). According to Dewey (1916), communication is the process of shared experiences allowing common possession to emerge. Communication of interests in which all members are given a voice denote a true communal structure. Ideally, the structure will have flexibility to allow new members and new ideas to come into the community, as well as others to leave, which maintains the social continuity of life. From this standpoint, according to Dewey (1916), the dependence within the community strengthens, rather than weakens, the community as interdependence grows. An individual who has increased independence will be more self-sufficient and self-reliant, which can lead to aloofness and indifference within the community 52 (Dewey, 1916). Whereas, the act of “embracing the reality of the other,” (Palmer,1993, p. 8), is a way of reweaving the bonds of the community and strengthening the common understanding. Hansen (2011) described the strengthening of community through the idea that “moving closer and closer apart and further and further together” shows the value of the shared features of human life (p. 3). This description is significant because it outlines how community can provide ways to move further and further together toward shared goals and common understandings through overcoming obstacles, sharing experience, and embracing opportunities (Hansen, 2011; Hutchinson, 2010). However, at the same time, a community can bring people closer and closer apart by the recognition of each person as a unique member of the community who “speaks, listens, responds, and interacts with the strange and the familiar in life” (Hansen, 2011, p. 48). Although community sounds like a simple concept, people are not born into knowing how to build community – it needs to be constructed and sustained by all members, a moral endeavour sustained through emotion, intellectual, and conscious activity (Dewey, 1927/2012). Through his concept of a Great Community Dewey (1927/2012) explained how people are brought together through common interests and values with the inherent need to eliminate negative externalities and create equality among its members (Dewey, 1927/2012). There is an individual aspect within the Great Community as people experience their own events and experiences through their own situated perspective; however, according to Dewey (1927/2012), meanings of those events can be shared and common meanings can emerge through the community. Each individual sees the world uniquely, but diverse perspectives can be shared and people can learn from others’ unique perspectives. In other words, I can become we when actions and events are shared and become an object of desire, rather than an event that was asserted upon others through control and force. Individualization within the community can satisfy both the 53 need for communal life and the need to exist as a person within a community created through the mutual trust and respect for all members of the community and the community as a whole (Dewey, 1927/2012). From an individual point of view, there is a sense of responsibility to maintain activities and events according to the collective interests of the group – further strengthening ties within the community (Dewey, 1927/2012). From a collective perspective, Dewey’s (1927/2012) notion of the Great Community demands harmony within the interests of the community, creating further sustainability through interdependence (Biesta, 2004; Hansen, 2011; Noddings, 2003). Considering an educational community of teachers coming together to talk about their inquiries, the shared experience and collective learning environment can be a fertile ground for community building. Since all communication is educative, it stands to reason that all genuine social life is educative as well (Dewey, 1916). The community remains vital through the communicative aspect of continuing to seek common understanding; however, if communication begins to run “in a routine way … it lose[s] its educative power” (Dewey, p. 6). Sustainability of a community is possible through communication that is open, honest, and somewhat challenging. Dewey explains that renewal of a community takes place by the continual educational growth of the newest members of the community – the children. Palmer (1993) noted the challenges of helping students feel the necessity and that educative power of community stating, “There is a simple reason why some students resist thinking: they live in a world where relationships are often quite fragile. They are desperate for more community, not less, so when thinking is presented to them as a way of disconnecting themselves from each other and from the world, they want nothing of it” (p. xvi). For Palmer, buiding community and buiding knowledge are intertwined processes. Of course, all learning is challenging and often involves changing beliefs, 54 assumptions, and values, so community-building requires an emphasis on understanding diverse opinions and how challenging ideas can often lead to a sense of collective understanding, often leading to strengthening the interdependence of those within the community. From an educative standpoint, to be a part of a learning community focused on the “ever-appearing crossroads of the new and the known” (Hansen, 2011, p. 6) is to welcome the opportunity to engage with other members of the community in an intellectual capacity. Whether it is teachers working with students or teachers working with other teachers, the concept of community is the same – ideally it is a place where learning is embodied. As I examined different perspectives of community it was helpful to understand what could be happening to develop and strengthen the concept of community in a school environment. Building knowledge together creates and strengthens community through the deepening of relational ties among members (Hanson, 2011; Palmer, 1993). Foregrounding relationships as foundational to learning in PLCs. Early research on PLCs established common characteristics of PLCs such as shared goals and vision, a sustained focus on learning to improve student experiences, shared leadership (DuFour & Eaker, 1999; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009), and the characteristics continue to resonate in current research. In this study, I foreground the importance of the relational learning in PLCs, focusing on three characteristics that resonate with and reflect what it means to build and sustain relationships as important aspects of building and sustaining PLCs, the experience of care, a sense of belonging, and valuing of difference (Hansen, 2011; Noddings, 2013; Wenger, 1998). I suggested that these can be understood as the relational characteristics within a PLC, highlighting the importance of attending to relationships as the site of learning through which teachers grow community as they work together toward their common purpose. These characteristics of relational learning cannot 55 easily be isolated or distinguished from the structural description of community (Dewey, 1916), however I do provide discrete descriptions of these three characteristics of relational learning for this dissertation to explain further how they impact the notion of relational learning. Caring: Living out the need to be present. Caring involves considering others in ways that emphasize kindness and concern, but also the ability to be present and genuine in that exchange (Noddings, 2013). Even when there is a perceived distance between humans, the ability to be engrossed in another and consider another’s well-being is part of caring (Noddings, 2013). The ability and desire to care for others and be cared for does bring a sense of joy, and therefore, has the potential to be sustainable within a community due to the positive feelings associated with the behaviour of caring for others in the community. Noddings (2003) stated, “Caring preserves both the group and the individual” (p. 100). When comparing caring to survival of a species, caring is the ultimate self-serving action as it causes reciprocal human connection allowing for sustainability. Noddings (2003) wrote of the need to be present with others, especially when considering others’ points of view and listening to others’ perspectives. Noddings continued to explain that since human beings are socially constructed and understood in relation to others, engaging from a state of presence with others reduces the desire to act in a selfish, self-centered, or egotistic way. The ethics of care has gained attention over the past forty years in many different fields of study, such as psychology, political science, business, and nursing (Noddings, 2012). Care ethics became popular in the 1980’s with a focused interest on the experience of women and how gender was connected to moral philosophy (Noddings, 2012). This kind of ethical approach to relationships promotes respect, safety, and self-worth for all those in the relationship (Collins & Ting, 2014; Ndunda, Van Sickle, Perry & Capelloni, 2017). The experience of “feeling together” 56 in community often leads to taking an interest in others and seeking to promote their well-being (McDaniel, 2010, p. 100). However, this kind of ethical approach is not necessarily a straightforward path towards happiness and feeling good about oneself, rather it can be full of uncertainty, confusion, and self-doubt as humans negotiate what it means to care and feel cared for (Collins & Ting, 2014). Committing to this kind of ethical approach is hard work and it is highly complicated, since relationships are always in disequilibrium (Goldstein, 1998), and so caring for others and caring for self requires a constant state of renewal. Theoretical underpinnings of ethics of care. Carol Gilligan (1982) described the differences in moral development influenced by gender roles, written in response to Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1981) justice orientation to moral decision-making which represents a patriarchal view emphasized by the use of reason, thought, form, rules, and means to seek truths. Kohlberg concluded that women were less morally developed than men based on the scale he derived in which he equated morality to justice (Owens & Ennis, 2005). In contrast, Gilligan (1982) suggested that women follow a distinctive three-phase sequence when making morally-based decisions, and each phase is deeply rooted in a complex relationship between self and other. Gilligan noted that to move from phase to phase involves a critical reinterpretation of the dilemma between selfishness and responsibility. However, in contrast to Kohlberg’s (1981) scale, Gilligan (1982) suggested that it is the initial response of caring towards others that helps to resolve conflict between self and other when considering moral decision-making (Owens & Ennis, 2005). Gilligan (1982) further described the difference between how women and men approach moral decision-making in terms of a visual representation. She described a patriarchal perspective as a top-down image of hierarchy which is laden with a power division at the 57 different levels. In contrast, a feminist perspective is a circular web of interdependent experiences in which decisions are made collaboratively and considering relationships with others (Owens & Ennis, 2005). This ethical stance of care was identified as being highly valued by women and considered a critical role when resolving ethical dilemmas (Kropiewnicki & Shapiro, 2001). Gilligan’s (1982) ethics of care reflected the importance of considering many aspects of relation when making decisions, in contrast to Kohlberg’s (1981) more individualized version of power fundamentally based on justice rather than relation. Gilligan (1982) opened up the concept of ethics of care to the feminist perspective, which was drastically different from Kohlberg’s (1981) approach. The focus on social relations and ethics of care led to the work of Nel Noddings (2003) and her approach to ethics of care. The concept of relational ethics, or ethics of care, assumes that human encounters and affective responses are a fact of human existence and that all human beings long for caring (Noddings, 2013). Noddings (2003) stated that caring is rooted in the receptive act of relating to others, and that longing forms the foundation for ethical behaviour. Human beings receive joy from the connection with others, meaning that “whatever virtue I exercise is completed, fulfilled, in you.” (p. 6). Noddings (2003) wrote of the roles of human beings in ethics of caring as: the one caring and the one cared for. However, she also noted that there is often reciprocity in the caring behaviour. Therefore, there is not one person giving and one person receiving in a caring relationship. Noddings acknowledged that caring is reciprocal in the idea that caring is both self-serving and other-serving simultaneously, allowing for sustainability of caring in relationships. Noddings’ (2012) perspective of ethics of care is derived from an ontologically-based understanding of relation, stating “Every human life starts in relation, and it is through relations that a human individual emerges” (p. 771). Caring is not considered an attribute or something 58 that you are, according to Noddings (2012), but rather a relation or something that you engage in (Goldstein, 1998). All interactions provide the space for a caring relation to develop; however, without genuine connection, people are often left with the potential of interacting in a superficial way that may promote acquaintance rather than bond. Since caring occurs within relationships, Gordon, Benner, and Noddings (1996, p. xiii) determined caring as a set of relational practices that foster a caring climate: 1. Engrossment – Establishment of a one-caring relationship by accepting the others’ feelings and acknowledging the relevance of their experience. 2. Commitment – An attitude that there is nothing that can take precedence over the one-caring’s responsibility to care for the other. 3. Motivational displacement – A shift of focus from self to the other (views the world through the others’ eyes). The recipient of the care responds to the efforts of the one-caring and acknowledgement or reciprocity in the caring relation is completed (Owens & Ennis, 2005). The response will be spontaneous and uncertain from the cared-for person and will determine the nature of the caring relationship in the future. Creating a climate for caring. A growing body of research indicates that students and teachers are increasingly isolated in schools, and that this is leading to a lack of caring connections and less of an emphasis on learning in relation to others (McDaniel, 2010; Noddings, 2002; Brodie, 2013). When students and teachers are not given the time and space to interact and care about each other, learning within that kind of environment can be challenging (McDaniel, 2010; Vangrieken et al., 2016). For example, Palmer (1993) stated “a learning space needs to be hospitable not to make learning painless but to make the painful things possible, 59 things without which no learning can occur – things like exposing ignorance, testing tentative hypotheses, challenging partial or false information, and mutual criticism of thought” (p. 74). McDaniel (2010) argued that educators should focus not solely on having a climate for caring, but instead to create the space for expressing differences and unique perspectives while preserving caring relationships as a way of ensuring authentic emotions that include negative and distressing ones. Brodie (2013) explained that conflict is a positive part of learning and allows for diverse perspectives to be heard, acknowledged and considered, but an ethic of care is needed to ensure professional conflict does not unravel into personal conflict. The ongoing, daily practice of caring for others and creating the space for caring can invigorate community, bringing a sense of closeness (Hutchinson, 2010). McDaniel (2010) suggested that educators need to create the space in relationships for the frustration and anger, as well as the warm feelings. For a truly caring relationship to exist there needs to be dialogue that can survive expressions of differences that may threaten beliefs and assumptions of others. McDaniel suggested that, “we take an interest in each other’s subjective viewpoints, when we come together in moral dialogue, we do not instantly translate the other’s argument into our own interpretative framework. Instead, we attempt to consider our partner’s position within its own meaningful context” (p. 100). The process of growing community and the structures in place to facilitate coming together in community to learn may offer the relational ground within which rich learning can happen as teachers experience and offer caring connections. Care in Educational Leadership. Ethics of care became a focus of educational leadership as theorists noted the importance of developing a caring school community through the actions of the leaders (Stefkovich & Shapiro, 2003). Starratt’s (1991) foundational model for ethical decision-making in educational leadership focused on three pillars – critique, justice, and 60 care. These three pillars are not incompatible, but rather they complement each other as the model places leaders in relation to those they lead (Starratt, 1991). The ethics of care pillar reminded leaders to value others and acknowledge their individuality, while honouring their dignity. The focus on human relationships is necessary for people in positions of leadership to seek out opportunities for the students and people they work with to enjoy life through the recognition that they are dealing with a human being. Stefkovich and Shapiro (2003) built on Starratt’s (1991) model by utilizing the existing three pillars of ethical decision-making and adding one more – profession. When making decisions, leaders aim to focus on the profession as part of their conscious thought. By focusing on relationships in this way, leaders will respect, trust, and empower those they come in contact with throughout their career (Stefkovich & Shapiro, 2003). Administrators who work from an ethic of care place importance on relationships, recognizing different needs and responding with caring towards their students and teachers (Kropiewnicki & Shapiro, 2001). Administrators who do engage in caring relationships have reported feeling a sense of satisfaction by acting as the one caring (Noddings, 2013) and valued the relational exchange that takes place with those they lead. Meyer (2013) found that enacting a care-based leadership practice through the philosophy, decisions, and behaviours of an administrator result from a particular leadership acuity, involving social-emotional competencies, and that this caring leadership is necessary for the administrator to lead schools through stable and turbulent times. Research on the ethics of care also offers critiques of this theory (Collins & Ting, 2014; Crigger, 1997; Goldstein, 1998; Poole & Isaacs, 1997). For example, the theory of care ethics has been historically considered a gendered aspect of work and life (Gilligan, 1982; Poole & Isaacs, 1997), and that a feminist focus can lead to devaluing the concept of care ethics in a more 61 patriarchal society, if caring for others is seen as women’s work (Poole & Isaacs, 1997). In a related criticism, Poole and Isaacs (1997) and Goldstein (1998) point out that as professions traditionally held by women, such as nurses and teachers, strive to receive increased recognition for their professional status, the focus on ethics of care may de-emphasize their professionalism and emphasize their femininity in relation to caring. The authors described the connection between this criticism and Paulo Freire’s (1970) oppression model to explain how people in a subordinate group may devalue the qualities of the group in order to fit in with the dominant group they are striving to join. In addition, Hoagland (1990) described Noddings (2013) notion of uni-directional care as potential for oppression as well, where the intentional focus on the other person, with a disregard for self-care, may reinforce oppression in role of the person caring for others as is described by Noddings (2013) as other focused. Vendenberg (1996) agreed that always focusing on the other person is unrealistic due to the fact that there is an over-emphasis on the goodness in Noddings’ work, almost bordering on self-sacrificial. Vendenberg (1996) explained that Noddings describes entering into a caring relationship with a complete sense of non-judgment and other-focus, but that human nature does not readily reflect this complete sense of caring in common interactions. While the demographic of teaching has changed over the years, with more men entering teaching roles and more women taking on leadership (British Columbia Teachers Federation, n.d.), there continues to be a need to attend to care at all levels of education, and involving all genders (Kropiewnicki & Shapiro, 2001; Starratt, 1991). Noddings (2002) explained that the gendered aspect of ethics of care can be explained by the fact that women have traditionally been primary care givers. She clarified that instead of perpetuating the gendered stereotyping of care, 62 we need to focus on the important potential of authentic human liberation and social justice that can only be achieved by caring people in caring communities (Noddings, 2002). There is no shared language in care ethics among scholars (Crigger, 1997), which makes consensus of the conceptual and practical understandings of care ethics difficult to agree upon and sustain. Each scholar’s diverse interpretation may add to the ambiguity within the field of care ethics and as the field has grown in popularity, so has the number of interpretations. This fact may add to the division between ethics of care research and the challenges of gaining a common understanding or representation of care within fields of research and practice. The importance of belonging within community. The importance of building relationships with teachers as an integral part of the education system is established in much research (Gillies, 2017; Staalvik & Staalvik, 2011; Willams, Ritter & Bullock, 2012). A sense of belonging is important to all human beings (Gillies, 2017), and is positively related to satisfaction and positive affect in teachers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Not only is belonging one of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of basic needs, it is important within community to engage members and create a sense of interdependence. When someone has a sense of belonging, they feel valued by their community and are given opportunities to add value to the community (Gillies, 2017; Wenger, 1998). In that way, belonging is sensed and experienced through relationship with others in community. It is through meaningful relationships that a caring community can be built with the foundation of belonging as a central component (Gillies, 2017; Noddings, 2013). Early writing on the work of teaching in schools noted that isolation was the predominant experience for teachers and that few collaborative structures were in place in schools to shift this sense of working in isolation (Lortie, 1975). Ongoing challenges, such as lack of funding, and 63 the lack of structures that support collaboration contribute to the sense of isolation felt by many teachers (Johnson, Reinhorn & Simon, 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2016). Additionally, the culture within a school may prohibit collective learning and a sense of belonging to a group of colleagues if a sense of privacy is valued in teachers’ classrooms (Little, 1982; Talbert & McLauhglin, 1994). Interestingly, a sense of belonging is one of the factors that may impact retention in the teaching profession and impact the motivation to learn and teach within community (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Engaging in opportunities to develop shared goals and values among colleagues is a way to reduce isolation and foster a sense of belonging (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Wenger, 1998). Belonging within community involves a sense of identity-building as community members seek opportunities to participate in social experiences and knowledge building with others. Wenger (1998) described three modes of belonging that impact how a community connects and forms identity: engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement is understood as the ongoing negotiation of how individuals participate in community actions involving shared experience and knowledge building. The term imagination is used to describe a practice of self-reflection and awareness in relation to understanding themselves and others. And finally, alignment describes the focus on individuals directing their energy toward common goals that are negotiated within the community. These modes of belonging work in connection to build community through a sense of belonging. The sense of belonging, according to Wenger (1998), can increase the collaborative culture of community and increase the likelihood of developing a learning community. Working in community with colleagues can create a more collaborative work culture where teachers may increase their commitment and motivation (Dee et al., 2006), engage in 64 problem solving with others (Pounder, 1999), decrease in overall workload (Vangrieken et al., 2016), foster responsibility for one another’s well-being (Johnson et al., 2016), and increase individual and collective efficacy (Park et al., 2005; Sun et al., 2017). In addition to the benefits for teachers, teacher communities increase organizational strength and wellness by creating an interdependent structure where teachers can more clearly see their role and the impact they may be making in the larger system (Erdem & Ozen, 2003; Vangrieken et al., 2016). This sense of recognizing their contribution within a group toward improving their school can lead to a greater sense of belonging (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Sun et al., 2017). Walker (2007) described belonging within a team-like relationship as teamship, involving a development of patterns of influence with one another for a specific purpose. Within a living system perspective, teamship is assumed to be under constant construction as people develop as interdependent parts within a community. Walker (2007) described his understanding of teamship as “a situated phenomenon, unique to the particulars of a setting, circumstances, relational histories, tasks, and persons” (p. 46). From an ecological perspective, groups of teachers working and learning together highlight the complexity of teacher relationships and how the community is in constant movement and evolution, rather than a static, linear progression of people merely working together (Goodnough, 2010; Walker, 2007). From this perspective, “the world is not a collection of isolated objects, but is a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and interdependent” (Walker, 2007, p. 57). Lieberman and Mace (2010) used the term, colleagueship, to describe the importance of teachers working in relation to others toward improving some aspect of their work. They argued that this sense of colleagueship grows a sense of belonging to a group making a difference within a learning environment. 65 Opening up in honest ways that develop a sense of bonding, of belonging to a group with a common purpose of vision, may be an ideal toward which a community may strive. However, it is also important to recognize that some people value solitary activities as important processes for their learning, with time and space to reflect deeply on their own. For example, teachers who identify as introverts tend to be energized by having alone time to think through their own learning. They tend to orient primarily towards concepts and ideas in their own inner world (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989) and go through processes of deep consideration before sharing new knowledge or learning with others. If introverts do collaborate with others in community, often they are more comfortable in groups of two or three people rather than a large community group. Teachers who tend to feel more introverted may not need to belong to a large community to feel validated, and may need to have a mixture of solitary time and then community involvement to feel comfortable working with others (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013). Online communities may also offer spaces for growing community (Hou, 2015). Carpenter and Krutka (2014) explained the benefits of engaging in professional learning with a community over Twitter through asynchronous tweeting as a way to belong to community without the commitment of personal interactions. Belonging within an online community may decrease feelings of tension for those who may be more introverted or less inclined to share in larger face-to-face groups, and offers access to community for those teachers who may be restricted by time and place in their opportunities to collaborate (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014). A sense of belonging may be challenging for those teachers who feel that they must participate in learning groups. This sense of compliance, or of needing to participate to meet expectations, comes with a more procedural or surface-level obligation rather than the commitment that can come with the voluntary desire to belong to the group, to develop a deep 66 learning environment with others (Goodnough, 2010). Building community and a sense of belonging can also feel overwhelming or demanding to some teachers. Regardless of the reason, feeling forced to belong to a community tends to lead to those teachers feeling resentful and/or seeking more opportunities to learn individually (Goodnough, 2010). As communities move from simple, surface-level interactions, often involving sharing ideas, into more difficult joint work that often involves a change of belief or opinion as teachers engage in dialogue about how to improve and grow their practice, there is likely the potential for more conflicts to occur (Little, 1982; Mintrop & Charles, 2017). The emergence of relationships through the practice of caring for others, valuing differences and belonging, also may bring potential exposure to judgments, vulnerabilities, and feelings of insecurity as people grow more interdependent (Lieberman & Mace, 2010; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). The reality of relational learning often involves dissent and conflict as members work engage with each other in honest and open ways, learning about and working productively with each other’s different values, beliefs, and approaches (Hargreaves, 2001; Vangrieken et al., 2016). Valuing of differences: Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitism is a theory that describes ways of knowing that value and seek out different and new ways of thinking, being, and doing and that also comes to understand and value the common and shared features of life (Hansen, 2011). Placing relationships at the heart of what it means to be human, Hansen (2011) stated that “From a cosmopolitan perspective, however, the world is what human beings make of it, subject to conditions of their mortality, vulnerability, and fallibility” (p. 6). Cosmopolitanism is the capacity to continually consider oneself in the world in relation to others, in order to foster mutual understanding and cooperation. However, Hansen (2011) recognized the complexity of the simple statement of shared-ness, and does not describe this concept as utopian. A 67 cosmopolitan perspective is inherently always in movement, as change is a necessity, as well as inevitable, part of constant renewal and growth. The orientation positions people to continually learn from one another through interaction, rather than simply tolerating or co-existing with others. This happens with knowledge and understanding, and deep reverence for the differences that are always apparent within community. It is the diversity among people that allows the shared-ness to become the glue that holds the community together, due to the ability to listen and understand someone else’s perspective. This kind of constant commitment to clarifying values is the kind of relational interaction that is difficult to enact, and even more difficult to sustain. Hansen (2011) described the strengthening of community through the idea that “moving closer and closer apart and further and further together” actually shows the value of the shared features of human life (p. 3). This description is significant because it outlines how community moves closer apart by interacting and learning about others over a period of time with a deep recognition for how each person is unique (Hansen, 2011). However, at the same time, a community can be brought further together by overcoming obstacles, sharing experience, and embracing opportunities; in the educative context, these experiences are likely shared learning experiences. For example, teachers in a school may have different philosophies of how children learn, but they share the desire to have all children learn. They may share their different perspectives of learning theory and gain further understanding from the diversity within the group of teachers, while gaining further respect for each individual teacher as they enter into dialogue about their own perspective. Anytime you bring a group together, differences are there, but they are not necessarily seen or acknowledged by the group. Hansen (2011) described the complexity that exists when you bring a group of people together into a collective environment. This perspective of relationality entails a sort of travelling, a constant movement of “intellectual, 68 ethical, and aesthetic journeying” (Hansen, 2011, p. 2). The terrain is often bumpy, due to the closeness and togetherness of a group of people; however, that is the realness of community. Hansen (2011) explained cosmopolitanism as the “ever-shifting, ever-vibrant space in which persons fuse openness to the new with loyalty to the known in an educationally transactive manner” (p. 159). Hansen describes this concept as: always leaving while always remaining at home. In other words, it is important to step out of one’s comfort zone and seek new perspectives, but at the same time learning to remain loyal to one’s uniqueness and one’s own wisdom. The relationship between what is considered a place of home and a place in the world can describe the necessity for cosmopolitan-minded people to consider what are one’s own knowledge, beliefs, assumptions, understandings, while seeking out different perspectives of others with the intent to continually learn and grow and change. This process is dynamic and does not follow a pattern or recipe, but does require an open mind and a capacity for reflection on self and other in relation to any topic of inquiry or professional learning initiative. Cosmopolitism is an ancient concept (Hansen, 2010a), in which the notion of relationality can provide positive influences for how we may develop and sustain a sense of community in our increasingly diverse and constantly shifting educational environments. Developing the individual person through interactions with others. Within cosmopolitanism, a person is considered both as an individual and a person within the larger community. Both are important elements of cosmopolitanism, where individuals need to feel that they are treated as distinctive members who have something significant to contribute for their uniqueness (Hansen, 2010a). In other words, although each person is considered a social being living in relation to others, they need to be understood as more than a product of social forces. The need for others is evident in Hutchinson’s (2010a) acknowledgment of “how important it is 69 to know of and about the differences among us, to have some shared communities, but also to feel deeply respectful of and acknowledge the necessity for others to be separate and self-determining” (p. 86). There is an importance of not only accepting others, but entering into a relational space with others with the intent to learn from others. Based on this perspective, an important factor of cosmopolitanism is the constant movement from individual to community as growth and reflection happen simultaneously. Hansen (2010a) stated, “Cosmopolitan-minded people will be receptive to lifeguiding ideas from elsewhere while prudent about taking them on. They fuse reflective (rather than naïve) openness to the new with reflective (rather than dogmatic) loyalty to the known” (p. 157). This valuing of differences is viewed as important for constant recreation of community as people interact within it in new ways (Hansen, 2010a). Cosmopolitan-minded people: A way of being in the world. Although cosmopolitan-minded people may aim for open-minded ways of knowing that seeks out the common and familiar as well as appreciating and valuing differences, no one can be constantly open to new perspectives, nor loyal all the time to their own wisdom. Hansen (2010b) asserts that there must be a flexibility and a discernment in understanding how and when to be open and receptive to new ideas, and how and when to stay loyal to what is already known. The importance of learning from others, as opposed to simply tolerating those who may not think or act in the way that we do, is argued to be significant to valuing differing perspectives (Hansen, 2010b). Someone who has a cosmopolitan orientation does not take sides without question, but also does not back away from conflict and challenge, rather they embrace the opportunity for learning from others (Hansen, 2010b). Cosmopolitanism can exist in schools between teachers and their students and between their colleagues. Approaching colleagues with a cosmopolitan orientation, “can help form an 70 organic basis for democratic communication that radiates from the bottom outward rather than awaiting top-down initiatives” (Hansen, 2010b, p. 5). In a PLC, for example, teachers collaboratively working and learning together need not put trust solely in what is the norm, what is the custom within the school culture, but rather, they can determine together how they might perceive, discern, and potentially critique the norm as they consider different ways to work with each other that may value diverse perspectives. For some teachers, this way of thinking and learning might be a new way of considering their role as a teacher and as a collegial member in the school community. Teachers can be supported to develop a cosmopolitan orientation as they engage with their colleagues and their students in ways that invite this kind of communication. A PLC can become a cosmopolitan community when there is a focus on how different teachers approach questions of purpose and value in their role as teachers, where they engage in professional learning that becomes more of a “a way of living, or a way of being, that answers to life’s unimagined possibilities” (Hansen, 2010b, p. 10). Hansen (2010b) stated that, “teachers can continue to learn from one another, as many do, about how to develop pedagogical artfulness – how to cultivate the art of teaching that for some seems to accompany the art of living” (p. 22). Hansen explains that to be a part of a learning community focused on the “ever-appearing crossroads of the new and the known” (Hansen, 2011, p. 6) is to welcome the opportunity to engage with other members of the community in an intellectual capacity where learning is embodied. Knowledge can create and strengthen community through the interactions among members of the community (Hansen, 2011; Palmer, 1993). Critics of cosmopolitism claim that it is naïve utopianism or idealism and can represent anything from political aloofness to elitist aestheticism (Koczanowicz, 2010). Hansen (2010a) recognizes that currently there is no acknowledged field of cosmopolitanism and suggests that it 71 will be some time before scholars can agree on a well-defined concept that is universally understood and acknowledged. This lack of definition brings with it a critique of not having a more solid identity, of trying to be too many things to too many different areas of study, of seeming to be somewhat watered down (Imre & Millei, 2009). For example, cosmopolitanism could be just another label for, and a more accepted version of, privileges for the rich. If cosmopolitanism is considered a way of knowing chosen by few elite people, then it would be beneficial to high society, which is educated enough and experienced enough to understand the global society and how to move within it to benefit themselves through equality in economy and social life (Koczanowicz, 2010; Imre & Millei, 2009). For example, Imre and Millei (2009) describe a scenario where the concept of cosmopolitanism is widely popular: English-speaking, well-read, well-fed people who have the ability to travel around the world with a sophisticated knowledge of cultural diversity through a global frame of reference. However, according to Imre and Millei (2009), this perspective is narrow and does not represent a global society. Similarly, Waghid and Smeyers (2010) share the critique of cosmopolitism as an elite theory for a privileged few, adding that a particular idea of a good life cannot be assumed to be shared by large groups of people, there are many ways of knowing connected to different local contexts. Another critique of cosmopolitanism considers the question of judgment. Papastephanou (2002) questioned if the ideal is to have a deep respect for others’ differences, is there an evaluative aspect to having a cosmopolitan orientation, and if so, who gets to evaluate people? She also questioned the absence of attending to past cultural clashes that may be present which may perpetuate an ‘us/them’ attitude when considering how cultures are seen and understood in the world (Papastephanou, 2002). While cosmopolitanism tends to focus on present or future interactions, Papastephanou (2002) noted that although historical events sometimes perpetuate 72 conflicting feelings or attitudes towards others which may hinder efforts to honour and value different perspectives without repercussions, it is important not to lose sight of the meaning that is connected to this way of looking at the world (Hansen, 2010a; Pinar, 2009). 2.5 A Relational Learning Conceptual Framework Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: Relational Learning in PLCs Valuing differences in others through observing and acknowledging their uniqueness is a way to connect within community and acknowledge one’s own role within a dynamic learning Relational Learning Care Belonging Valuing Differences Professional Learning Community Relational Epistemology 73 environment. From a relational epistemological perspective, understanding how knowledge is constructed in relation to others can shift the perspective of our current view of PLCs as primarily organizational structures for school improvement towards the relational aspects of coming together to grow community as an important foundation for learning. With that in mind, we can focus on the important elements for enriching and deepening the learning experiences within the PLC by emphasizing that relationships are foundational to learning and consider community as a process and a structure for relationship development. Through using Stoll and Seashore Louis’ (2007) definition of a PLC as focused on aspects of professional learning in which a cohesive, caring community is developed through constructing collective knowledge, I connected those focal aspects to the literature on community building and relational learning to develop my initial conceptual framework. The importance of caring as a focal point for professional communities was highlighted in the literature on components of building school culture (Noddings, 2003; Sergiovanni, 1994), and was used by Stoll and Seashore Louis (2007) to describe caring for colleagues through building communities as being equally important to teacher learning. Stoll and Seashore Louis (2007) described the significance of belonging within a cohesive community that values collective and individual knowledge as aspects of teacher learning that emphasizes learning in relation to others. The sense of belonging that Stoll and Seashore Louis described is enhanced by the concept of connections through a safe space where teachers feel they can take risks in their practice. The sense of belonging is not only the feeling of being accepted, but the value of contributing to the community (Wenger, 1998). Within the cohesive community of caring, there is an importance of teachers coming together with a shared learning goal; however, rich learning comes from gaining new perspectives and knowledge from teachers who have different opinions (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011). The coming together of 74 characteristics found in PLC research and relational learning literature contribute to building a cohesive community. The three relational characteristics I described, caring for others, belonging within community, and valuing of differences, offer new ways of thinking about how teachers experience professional learning through developing and deepening relationships with and in community. I suggest that an experience of relational learning can shift the focus in PLCs toward the relationships between and among members as fertile ground for deep and lasting learning experiences. In developing the conceptual framework for this study, I relied on the research literature on PLCs as well as my own experience as a teacher who has participated in professional learning initiatives for the past 18 years to offer a framework that also resonated with the professional perspective as a teacher. In addition, through my experiences with courses on curriculum and philosophy in my doctoral program, I came to understand the potential of relational learning and how it was connected to my on-going interest in professional learning for teachers. I connected with my experiences as a learner and as a facilitator of learning for teachers and reflected on my observations of conditions that may have lead to deep learning environments and the potential for learning to be impactful, meaningful, and relevant to teachers’ practice. In the diagram (Figure 1), I represent relational learning as the coming together of the three characteristics of relational learning within PLCs (caring, belonging, valuing of differences), within and through the lens of relational epistemology as a way of thinking about knowledge and beliefs as co-constructed within and among the relationships of the community. In the next section, I provide an overview of the theoretical influences informing my understanding of relational learning as an essential foundation for meaningful teacher learning in PLCs. 75 2.6 Relational learning: A foundation of teacher professional learning What might be gained by research that considers relational learning as central to what motivates, engages, nurtures, connects teachers in professional learning initiatives that they experience as meaningful, relevant, and impactful? By focusing on characteristics of relationships described in this chapter, such as caring, belonging, and valuing differences, I draw attention to the importance of the relational experiences of learning that may offer new insights about professional learning for teachers. The concept of relational learning foregrounds that all learners are active participants in their learning journey by recognizing relationships as the foundation of learning and building on the emphasis that learning is socially constructed. Within this approach, teachers can focus on engagement in genuine learning that may increase the development of relationalality by learning in relation-to-others (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2008). Teachers who engage in approaches to learning that consider different perspectives and are reflective in nature allow the members of the community to co-construct their assumptions, values, and beliefs based on their own interpretation and experiences. This focus may involve “active meaning-making through weighing available evidence in a knowledge domain in order to arrive as a personally reasoned stance about the knowledge” (p. 415). According to Brownlee and Berthelsen (2008), approaches to learning that do not allow for internal connections to be developed with either new knowledge connected to prior knowledge or connected to a task, are considered surface learning. Often, these surface learning experiences do not result in an integration of knowledge and likely means little resulting change in practices. The rich ground of relational learning is developed in the in between area between people (Biesta, 2004), without the apparent hierarchical control from either party involved in the 76 learning process. Each participant will give and take from the collective pool of interactive learning as they need to, and as they connect to prior knowledge. The role of the learners takes on different qualities than the traditional holder of knowledge and taker of knowledge that connotes a hierarchical structure. Rather, it is “a complex and eternal dance of intimacy and distance, of speaking and listening, of knowing and not knowing, that makes collaborators and co-conspirators of the knowers and the known” (Palmer, 2007, p. 109). Whereas the traditional notion of learning suggests that there is a power balance that is one-sided (the teacher and the learner) which often connotes a right answer or a knowledge passed from one person to the other and is often more about control than learning (Stengal, 2010), relational learning suggests that it is a reciprocal activity that lacks hierarchy (Reeves, 2010). According to Stengal (2010), the transmission understanding of knowledge which “dominates the professional education landscape, leaving little room to perceive, let alone consider, the human relations that motivate learning and growing” leaves learning opportunities for teachers at a disadvantage (p. 151-152). As Reeves (2010) explained, the traditional “technicist interpretation tends to hide from view the ways of seeing, and being in the world, that these external connections bring to the conduct of educating… sealed off from other aspects of their professional lives” (p. 3). Meaningful professional learning is rarely rational, staged, or planned, rather it is often messy, surprising, and complicated (Reeves, 2010). The ‘Third Space’ of relational learning. Meaning is often created in the in-between space based on the interaction of knowledge, prior experience, perspectives, and an individual’s purpose of the interaction (Biesta, 2010). Developed with reference to Bhabha’s (1994) widespread concept of the Third Space, Biesta’s (2010) theory of communication suggests that the learning happens in the space that is shared between all parties involved in the interaction. It 77 is the Third Space which acts as an unconscious relationship that allows participants to open their minds to interpretation of knowledge, and take information as needed (Bhabha, 1994). This is where meaning is created and internalized between participants. Due to the constant changing of the Third Space, learning happens as participants change perspectives, build various schemas of information, and develop different mindsets concerning shared knowledge. This notion of a Third Space can be understood in Vygotsky’s (1934) concept of social interaction with the necessity of not only language development to communicate needs, wants and knowledge, but the other participant’s background knowledge in order to understand and contribute to the interaction. People learn about themselves through interactions within community and continually develop how they can contribute to others within the community, whether it is the classroom community, the family community, the school community. Due to the fluid and dynamic knowledge constructed within the Third Space (internal and external processing), there cannot be control of learning, rather learning is social, yet personally significant. Learning emerges from the interaction between the people involved; therefore, the gap itself is the educator (Biesta, 2004). For example, within a group of teachers discussing how to engage students in the concept of social justice, they may offer different understanding about pedagogy and why it is important to consider diverse perspectives towards social justice. As they share their stories of what social justice means to them and why and how they teach for social justice in their classrooms, they may begin to develop a new understanding of their work as teachers as they make sense of their understanding in this new space of learning between them that incorporates all of their ideas and beliefs. As they consider the emerging ideas in this new space, they may find their own beliefs shifting and growing, seeing the topic from a new perspective. The reciprocity of the learning 78 process reflects the flow of knowledge between people, opening a space for deep learning to take place. As teachers practice this way of building knowledge together, they may find this space is where the passion of teaching and learning comes alive for them, brings them a sense of thriving as they learn and grow with and from others (Cherkowski, Hanson, & Walker, 2018). I developed the conceptual framework through the recognition that professional learning is complex, interactional, and a fundamentally relational process that is contextually grounded and offers opportunity to reflect on practice and consider new understandings (Reeves, 2010). My conceptual framework highlighted teacher learning that is shaped through and in relationship where collective knowledge construction can happen (Stengal, 2010). Dealing with concepts of relationality is messy and non-linear; however, I assumed that it may lead to widening our view of the relational aspect of learning for teachers and provide new knowledge about what it means for teachers to engage in relevant, meaningful, and impactful professional learning. As Reeves (2010) suggested, “taking a relational approach to professional learning undermines many of the usual distinctions and dichotomies that we make in describing educational processes and their outcomes, opening up a whole new territory for investigation and consideration” (p. 181). Through this study, I aimed to wade into this new territory that Reeves described to learn more about teachers’ experiences of developing and sustaining relationships with their colleagues in a PLC initiative. The conceptual framework served as a focus for my data collection, helping me to form questions for the focus group conversations. Additionally, the framework provided a thematic structure against which I could compare and contrast the emerging codes and categories from the analysis of the transcripts. In the next chapter I describe the social constructivist perspective that influenced the design of this study, as well as the processes of data collection, data analysis, participant selection, and trustworthiness. 79 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This qualitative case study explored teachers’ professional learning experiences within a PLC through the lens of relational learning. The broad aims of qualitative research are to understand social phenomena, to achieve an understanding and description of “the what, how, when and where of a thing – its essence and ambiance” (Berg, 2007, p. 3). Stake (1995) described that, in general, qualitative researchers seek understanding of a social phenomenon with the awareness of the personal role of the researcher in the inquiry and a perspective toward knowledge construction, rather than as an impersonal process of explaining knowledge that is discovered as something external or objectively experienced. Essentially, researchers engage in qualitative research to attempt to understand their environments with an interest in understanding the meaning behind a phenomenon (O’Donoghue, 2007). In qualitative research the process of accessing the data, often from stories and narrative accounts of experiences, and then interpreting and describing the understanding of the phenomenon gained from the data can be an iterative, emergent process. Creswell (1998) described this process as being like “an intricate fabric composed of minute threads, many colors [sic], different textures, and vicarious blends of materials” (p. 13). Qualitative research values and honours contextual understandings, where theories and knowledge emerge from the interplay between the stories of the participants and the interpretivist stance of the researcher (Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995). The meanings derived from the participants’ descriptions of their experiences are socially constructed between the participants and the researcher, allowing for a process that is inductive in design (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995). Additionally, there is an assumption in qualitative research that the researcher’s background shapes their 80 interpretation based on their own social, contextual, and historical understandings (Creswell, 2003), and that this adds another layer to the intricate fabric of understanding that is being developed through the research process. Qualitative researchers often use open-ended questions so participants can express their views and open spaces for new understandings through their narrative descriptions. By using open-ended questions, qualitative researchers can create opportunities to co-create knowledge and understandings with the participants by allowing the space for both the researcher and the participant(s) to learn with and from each other. 3.1 Philosophical Assumptions: A Social Constructivist Perspective I framed this study within a social constructivist approach based on the overarching assumption that knowledge is constructed in ongoing processes of social interpretations through interaction with others; knowledge is socially, culturally, and historically constructed (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Creswell, 2003; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). From this stance, qualitative researchers acknowledge the possibility of multiple experiences and descriptions of social reality. In order to honour these multiple possible realities available from interpretation of individual and group experiences, the researcher must pay attention to understanding and interpreting those experiences. A social constructivist stance remains different from a more positivistic approach of aiming to discover an objective, independent and singularly known and experienced reality. For example, Guba and Lincoln (1989) argued that “realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)” (p. 43). Stake (1995) described the social constructivist’s role in research as having an “expectation that phenomena are intricately related through many coincidental actions and that understanding them requires looking at a wide sweep 81 of context” (p. 43). Crotty (1998) argued that constructivist research reflects how meanings are constructed by humans as they make sense of the world based on their social perspective, and that researchers generate meaning from data that is largely inductive. From a social constructivist perspective, knowledge is constructed through experiencing and iteratively interpreting social interactions as they arise. This perspective is based on the belief that knowing is not a passive act, but rather an active experience. People are constantly engaged in experiences that continually test their own construction of knowledge and the process of knowing and the belief that reality is always socially constructed from moment to moment (Schwandt, 1998). Within this social understanding of knowledge construction, Stake (1995) acknowledged that each human has their own beliefs and that these individual beliefs are constantly shifting as part of the process of the collective construction of knowledge in a social environment. Stake (1995) stated, “although the reality we seek is of our own making, it is a collective making” (p. 102). Researchers need to become “involved in the reality of the participants and interact with them in meaningful ways” by engaging as research partners with participants in order to gain access to and derive understanding of participant’s experiences of the social reality being studied (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012, p. 29). Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2013) described how the assumption of multiple perspectives of reality provides an opportunity for researchers to explore participants’ own understandings and meanings about their experiences without the pre-determined limitations of ascertaining absolute truths that may singularly describe a certain social reality that can be objectively observed and recorded. In contrast, attending to multiple perspectives of experiences establishes a sense of honouring and valuing the complex interrelationships among these multiple experiences as an understanding more of human interactions rather than a cause and effect relationship (Stake, 1995). This 82 perspective engages the researcher to develop their own interpretations of the participants’ experiences, knowing that each step of the research process, including the reporting, assumes an interpretive stance. The co-construction of new knowledge about the phenomenon being studied is facilitated through this interpretive process of conversation and meaning-making between researchers and participants (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2013; Lincoln et al., 2013; Merriam, 2002; Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006). 3.2 Research Questions My philosophical assumptions of social constructivism are aligned with a relational epistemological perspective that suggests knowledge is created and made sense of through relational experiences with others (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2010; Thayer-Bacon, 2010). Through my research I sought to understand how relational learning influences and informs how teachers engage in and experience professional learning in PLCs to further develop insights about how to create conditions that may lead to more meaningful and impactful teacher professional learning. The following research questions guided the case study of teachers in the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) PLC, providing focus and alignment of research intentions while allowing me to remain open and flexible to emergent learning (Stake, 1995) as I engaged in conversations with these teachers. The research questions were developed within the context of the research literature that underpinned the theoretical framework for this study as well as my own professional experiences with teachers in PLCs: 1. In what ways does a relational lens provide new insights for fostering and supporting relevant, valuable and meaningful collective professional learning for teachers? 83 2. What qualities and characteristics of professional learning become evident through relational learning? 3. How does conceptualizing PLCs from a relational epistemology provide a new perspective for organizing professional learning in ways that promotes building relationship? 3.3 Case Study Research In order to gain a thick and rich description of the educators’ experiences of their professional learning, I used a case study research method (Stake, 1995). This research method provided a structure for exploring the relational experiences of teachers within a PLC through interpreting the narratives from the participants, as well as insights gained about the context of the case as an insider in this research. Case studies, like relationship-building, takes patience and time to develop, and often involve valuing a new way of understanding the phenomenon (Stake, 1995). In case study research, the focus is often on examining the people, places, and the context surrounding the phenomenon being studied. Case study is often useful for answering research questions that require an extensive description of an event; the answers are multiple and layered as understandings arise from the researcher’s intrepretations of the data, represented as a written product that readers will then draw their own reflections and interpretations of this event (Stake, 1995). For the purposes of this dissertation, I used Stake’s (1995) definition of a case study as the “study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (p. xi). Case studies can be a powerful form of research when the purpose of the study is “particularization, not generalization” (Stake, 1995, p. 8), which implies that the emphasis is on understanding a phenomenon. Primarily, case study research is about 84 understanding the experience, which is best facilitated through an approach that emphasizes richness of description rather than generalizability (Grandy, 2010). The purpose is to shed light on a complex issue by providing the readers with rich, narrative material with which they can make their own generalizations based on their own experiences and understandings that may be similar to those presented in the case (Stake, 1995). Case studies in education are common because most case studies approach teaching practice from a holistic perspective which allows for the complexity of the role of a teacher to be considered (Merriam, 1988; Wilson, 1979). A case study allows for the complexity of teaching to be fully examined through heightened exposure to the case in order to gain a thorough understanding. Experiences of teachers and others in schools are complex and reflect significant interconnectedness and interdependencies that require a nuanced understanding of the myriad of relationships at play in school lives (Berg, 2007; Richards & Morse, 2013). This study was designed as an instrumental case study, understood as an opportunity for the researcher to study a phenomenon from the vantage point of a known instance where that phenomenon may already be evident (Grandy, 2010; Stake, 1995). The CR4YR initiative provided the particular case to study for gaining further and deeper understanding of the phenomenon of relational learning within the existing CR4YR PLC. In this study, I was focusing on the understandings of professional learning from a particular group of teachers who participated in a provincially-developed PLC initiative. The case was bounded by the fact that all participants were teachers; they all taught within the K-12 public school system and they all took part in CR4YR PLC for two years. 85 3.4 Researcher Involvement The researcher’s role within a qualitative case study requires ongoing reflexivity that attends to the differences between the participants’ lived experiences related through conversations and interviews, and the researcher’s interpretation and presentation of those stories in ways that make sense of the research questions guiding the study. Stake (2000) indicated that this interpretivist stance is not “to dismiss the aim of finding the story that best represents the case, but to remind us that the criteria of representation ultimately are decided by the researcher” (p. 137). Additionally, from my insider position as a teacher within the school district, and a facilitator of the PLC in this study, I had an additional layer of researcher involvement. This involvement offered access into relationships and conversations that may otherwise have been more challenging to develop for an outsider researcher (Charmaz, 2006). I found the interview data collection to be conversational, and seemed to build naturally through our collegial relationships. The interviews I conducted with the participants were focused on my deep interest in their narratives, due to my role with teacher learning in my district and my interest in early reading. This also provided challenges in terms of ensuring my reflexivity within the focus groups and interviews, as well as my interpretation of the stories throughout the analysis process, as I aimed to remain aware during data collection and analysis of my various roles in this research process. I recognize that my connection with the participants through the relationships we were building as I worked with them as a facilitator within the PLC, was a benefit given that I had shared langague, experiences, and a sense of a common learning objective with them. We had built up a sense of trust and connection. However, I also note that this relationship with the teachers could also have been a limitation in this study, since it is possible that the participants may have withheld any negative comments they might have had about my leadership role within 86 the initiative. While I encouraged honesty and hoped that they might share with me all of their experiences, even those that may have included me, I recognise that my insider role as both a benefit and a limitation. Learning from the many case studies in professional learning, specifically with a focus on PLCs, that reported direct researcher involvement with the facilitation of the PLC (Carpenter, 2017; Cherrington & Thorton, 2015; Margalef & Pareja Roblin, 2016; Sindberg, 2016; Tan & Caleon, 2016) helped me to gain a better sense of the benefits and challenges of this insider role. The benefits I experienced through a dual facilitator/researcher role were directly related to minimizing the theory-practice gap that is apparent in much of the research on teacher learning. I was able to witness a deep connection between what was explored in theory during the PLC sessions and what was enacted in classrooms between sessions. I was able to witness how teacher learning was impacting students in classrooms as I visited schools. In addition, it was beneficial to share examples from classrooms of the innovative practices that teachers were excited about, in order for the PLC to develop relevance to classroom practice through their learning. A specific challenge I noted through my researcher field notes was the amount of work it was to continue to develop and redevelop the community. The daily habit of honouring voices, creating safe spaces for teachers to take risks, while researching teachers’ experiences at the same time was a continual effort. However, I believe that the heightened level of responsiveness that I felt due to noticing and nurturing what was impactful to the teachers’ learning, allowed me to be a more impactful leader helping to create conditions for us all to learn together over time. In writing about gathering data for qualitative research as an insider of the particular context and phenomenon under study, Charmaz (2006) stated, “Although we cannot claim to replicate their views, we can try to enter their settings and situations to the extent possible. 87 Seeing research participants’ lives from the inside often gives a researcher otherwise unobtainable views” (p. 14). My relationships with the participants as a teacher, colleague, and as a member of the facilitation team meant that I had insights into their experiences that may have been missed if I did not have the fuller story of who they were and what they had experienced throughout this learning processThis multi-lensed approach to interpreting the data may have allowed me to see the interactions and social learning as the research participants do – from the inside. As Stake (1995) reminded, “we need to pick cases which are easy to get to and hospitable to our inquiry” (p. 4) allowing the researcher to conduct the study within an established research community. I also sensed that the trust and easiness of our relationship in the focus group conversations that had been built from our years of working together meant that the participants experienced the conversations as more than a reporting of their experiences, but as an extension of their learning journey, an opportunity to continue to gain new understandings individually and as a group. I believe that by not holding myself apart from the research process, I gained valuable insights and perspectives into the experiences of the participants. The participants spoke about specific experiences that would be known only to colleagues, such as, the dynamics of school relationships and the transitions of teachers that caused upheaval to school culture. This allowed me to interpret a more full picture of what teachers were experiencing. However, this insider role did create tension at times when I felt like I could not do enough to support the teachers in circumstances like assisting them when classroom dynamics were difficult for them to deal with alone. My insider position created opportunities for me to gather and understand a set of rich, descriptive data that assisted me in telling the story of the participants’ learning journey, and helped me understand and represent their lived experience. 88 Personally, from a social constructivist, I also believe this research is about learning about myself as a teacher and a researcher, as I was learning about, from, and with the teachers. Through this research I was also making sense of the participants’ stories of experience in relation to my own experiences, values, and beliefs about teacher learning. My own professional experience was a catalyst for researching teachers’ professional learning, as I have found some professional learning opportunities, specifically participating in PLCs, to be an aspect of my teaching position that increased my motivation and excitement as a teacher. My research journey parallels that of my participants as I noticed that my new learning often took shape as they shared their beliefs and understandings about what it meant to them to engage together in professional learning. For instance, I was continually reading professional books about teacher learning and observing how my new knowledge was connected to the teachers’ learning. I engaged in tweaking practice when working with the teachers and noticing the impact of my change of practice. I was, essentially, merging theory and practice in order to build my own theory of teaching professional learning throughout this study. Additionally, I noticed that as I positioned myself within the dual roles of researcher and teacher I was open to the process of moving between theory and practice in terms of reflecting on the stories they shared with me and the sense of I was making about what it means to learn with colleagues in a teacher community. 3.5 Participant Selection The University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board reviewed the protocol for the research project. The Committee found the procedures to be ethically acceptable and a Certificate of Approval was issued (H12-02025). Participation was entirely voluntary and consent procedures were followed. All data collected were coded and 89 pseudonyms were used for all written descriptions and reporting of the data. There were no known risks associated with participation in this study. Participants were selected through an open invitation to all teachers who participated in the CR4YR collaborative inquiry in a small, rural school district in British Columbia with the criteria that they had participated for a minimum of two years during the three-year initiative (2012-2015). I anticipated that the participants would provide a more rich and comprehensive description of their learning given their longer time frame of participating in the PLC. This assumption was based on previous case study research on PLCs that were carried out over more than several months (Chen & Weng, 2015; Choi Fung Tam, 2015b; Joliffe, 2015), and research literature describing the need for professional learning over a longer period of time (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Timperley, 2011). In terms of qualitative research studies, two years does not necessarily indicate a long-term study. However, in education, a study of two-years documenting teacher learning proves to be longer than the typical study, which is generally only a few months or perhaps extends over the course of one school year (Chen & Weng, 2015; Joliffe, 2015). From the open invitation, ten teachers volunteered to participate in this study. These participants were all elementary classroom teachers or literacy intervention teachers who have worked in the district for 5-30 years. They are all female and had a bachelor degree and one teacher had a master’s degree in education. The participants are described in depth in chapter four. 3.6 Data Collection In general, in qualitative research there is no easily defined moment at which the data collection begins, because researchers are assumed to be engaged in gathering data as they read theoretical and empirical literature about other cases that inform their theoretical framework and 90 as they connect with potential participants and begin to build relationships with these people (Stake, 1995). Data used in this study included individual interviews that I had carried out as part of my work as a district literacy specialist associated with the CR4YR and focus group interviews that I carried out after the initiative had ended. In alignment with the social constructivist perspective framing the design of this study, I knew that participants would construct knowledge in collaboration with me, as the interviewer, and/or with the other participants in a focus group interview. The use of collective conversations to gather their stories about what this experience has meant to them over the course of the initiative and beyond reflected the importance of the concept of relational learning underpinning the theoretical framework for this study. The social constructivist perspective describes meaning as socially constituted and through interviewing there is the opportunity to produce knowledge (Stake, 1995). While the main source of data collected were the focus group conversations and individual interviews, I also used my researcher observations that I made throughout the study to support, enrich, or clarify my findings, and as a way to think about a relational learning perspective in retrospect. 91 Table 1 Timeline of participant interviews Participants Individual interviews - June, 2013 Individual interviews - June, 2014 Individual interviews - January, 2015 Focus group interviews – January, 2017 Kristy Ö Ö Ö Molly Ö Ö Ö Lita Ö Ö Ö Shanna Ö Ö Ö Coral Ö Ö Ö Lerae Ö Ö Ö Lynn Ö Ö Ann Ö Ö Ö Clea Ö Ö Diana Ö Ö Tania Ö Ö Sadie Ö Individual interviews. I carried out individual interviews when I was the district literacy specialist facilitating PLC sessions for CR4YR and was interested in how the teachers experienced their work in the PLCs. These interviews were helpful in understanding teachers’ experiences during the time of the initiative and offered insights for conversation themes for the focus groups to learn more about the teachers experiences once the PLCs had formally ended. During these individual interviews, I used a semi-structured interview guide to create the space for the conversation to evolve as the interviews progressed (Stake, 1995). I met with participants in a quiet, comfortable setting that provided confidentiality. The interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. I began the interview with an informal conversation to create a sense of comfort for the conversation. I used open-ended questions to elicit a rich dialogue from the participants, asking probing questions when appropriate. Some sample questions from the individual interviews include: in what ways have you noticed your participation reflected in your teaching? What were the benefits of working collaboratively with your professional learning community? 92 The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts of the interviews were sent to the participants to approve and/or add clarity to their words, which also provided an opportunity for member checking. Focus group interviews. Conducting focus group interviews provided an opportunity to engage participants in meaningful, collective conversations about their previous and on-going experiences since the end of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR). Lederman (1990) suggested that gathering for focus group interviews can provide a safe environment in which the “synergy can generate more than the sum of individual inputs” (p. 119), where conversations among many people can likely provide better information for answering the research questions. I determined that the use of focus groups would be beneficial for participants to reflect on their experiences with each other, and share their perceptions through a sustained and focused conversation (Stake, 1995). I used focus group interviews with two groups of participants to gain an understanding of their learning experiences during and since the ending of the CR4YR initiative. Five different participants joined each of the focus group interviews, which allowed me to hear different points of view on the same questions. Some sample questions included: Thinking about the school team that you participated in the CR4YR initiative with a few years ago, what do those interactions with your colleagues look like now? What aspect of the CR4YR initiative had the most profound impact on you and explain why? The focus group interviews were semi-structured with space during the conversations for emergent questions to arise (Patton, 2002). By giving the participants the time and space to have an in-depth conversation about their learning, the discussions took on a spontaneous format, which added to the depth and breadth of the data gathered. For example, a structured interview 93 with these participants was not necessary because of their history of working in community that had opened the spaces for them to feel comfortable conversing openly with each other and myself, as the researcher, who had known and worked with them during their time in this PLC. More free-flowing conversations were possible because of our established relationships that had developed through our previous collective learning experiences, and I felt comfortable directing the conversations with more structured questions as was necessary. This format provided more information to fill many of the gaps in my understanding about what it meant to these teachers to engage in collective learning, and also opened up new areas of knowledge that I did not anticipate, such as when the participants voiced their own emerging theories about pedagogy and student learning. The focus group interviews were held in a quiet, confidential space and lasted for 60 minutes each. In order to ensure I had heard everyone’s thoughts and opinions, I ended the focus group interviews with the question, Is there anything more you would like to say? The focus group interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were sent to participants for them to read, check to ensure I had appropriately captured their conversations, and approve for my use in this dissertation. Researcher observations. I drew on my observations that I had accumulated throughout this initiative as both a facilitator and a researcher. These observations and insights provided further detail about the individual and collective experiences of participants throughout the study. Since I facilitated the PLC in this case study, I used my insider position to write field notes during the PLC sessions on what I was noticing and how I was interpreting the experiences during their participation in the CR4YR initiative (2012-2015), as well as afterwards during the focus group interviews as I reflected on the conversations that were emerging. This process 94 allowed me to reflect on important information that helped to clarify the experiences the participants referred to during their individual and focus group interviews. The insights and information from my notes provided valuable descriptions of what was happening during the PLC sessions, reminding me of the fuller contexts of the stories emerging in the conversations and were helpful as I wrote the rich context for the case study. 3.7 Data Analysis In qualitative research there is not necessarily specific delineation between data gathering and data analysis; as one process begins, so does the other. This type of analysis takes time and patience as the researcher focuses on acknowledging emergent themes that are unfolding through the process. Stake (1995) emphasized the importance of finding the moments that reveal the uniqueness of the case, in order to further understand the complexity. The case needs to be described in detail to aid the reader in their sense of “being there” (Stake, 1995, p. 63) from the perspective of the various roles, which in this case was as a researcher and a teacher-facilitator. According to Stake (1995), a considerable amount of data is impressionistic, picked up informally through all the different interactions with text, people, and other research. These first impressions are a starting point that will lead to further understanding as formal data gathering occurs. These data can provide a snapshot of evidence over a multi-year period. The individual interviews and my researcher notes provided observations that gave me an initial perspective on which to draw when analyzing all of the data. The data analysis process was iterative and unfolded throughout the entire coding process from initial coding to the final stages of theorizing (Saldana, 2013). Coding is a heuristic process which allows for fluidity, inherently ensuring the process is alive and organic, developing as is 95 necessary (Saldana, 2013). Through this process I considered the possibility of various understandings emerging from reading the data and reflecting on existing themes and ideas in the research literature while attuning to my personal interpretations of what I was reading. This influenced how I noticed the patterns forming from analysis of the data (Charmaz, 2006; Saldana, 2013; Stake, 1995). One important aspect of the analysis process involved reading the transcripts with the intent to listen deeply for the participants’ voices through their descriptions and narratives. Through this intimate reading process, a researcher can begin to notice the various perspectives of the phenomena being described, engaging in a conversation with the data as questions and ideas emerge in relation to the stories shared in the transcripts. These conversations are helpfully captured through a set of memos or notes that researchers can make in the transcripts to capture their interpretations as they occur and are a regular part of qualitative analysis that can enrich the process of idea formulating and deep understanding (Charmaz, 2006; Saldana, 2013). My data analysis was an iterative process along with data collection and a review of related literature, which allowed me to consider emerging themes and notice where gaps were still evident in the data. Stake (1995) described the emergent nature of the analysis stating, “I do not seek to describe the world or even to describe fully the case. I seek to make sense of certain observations of the case by watching as closely as I can and by thinking as closely as I can and by thinking about it as deeply as I can” (p. 78). In other words, data analysis cannot be followed like a recipe, but rather it develops based on experience and reflection, to ensure the analysis fit with the research and provided a thread of congruency throughout the study (Saldana, 2013). I used both inductive and deductive analysis approaches, inductively identifying patterns and themes in the data in iterative cycles of coding which I then compared and contrasted against 96 themes that I had previously drawn from the existing literature. An inductive analysis allowed me to approach the data with an open, but analytical mind, constantly seeking new ideas and patterns through the analysis (Thomas, 2006). Stake (1995) argued that researchers also need to stay open to new possibilities that may emerge unexpectedly as the researcher gets to know the data more intimately through various reading cycles. The deductive analysis process allowed me to return to the literature and engage in theorizing and sense-making to further understand what I was learning from the data. The aim of using iterative rounds of analysis was to develop deep and rich insights and understandings of participants’ experiences to guide new theorizing about the phenomenon being studied (Charmaz, 2006; Saldana, 2013). Coding of data. As a first start in the data analysis process, I explored the fit of my conceptual framework with the set of individual interviews to determine if these would be useful and informative data to gain understandings about my research questions. I began with deductive analysis as I coded the individual interviews using the three relational characteristics from the theoretical framework guiding the study: ethics of care, belonging within community, and valuing differences. Through the reading and coding of these data, I began to see a strong fit for these codes in this initial data and determined that this data set would be useful for providing insights about the teachers’ relational learning experiences. This initial analysis of the interviews was also important for guiding the development of the topics for conversations in the focus group interviews. Additionally, this data proved beneficial to refer back to after the data from the focus groups were collected, providing further understanding about the experiences of these participants, and allowing me access a fuller picture of their experiences of relational learning over the course of their experiences in this professional learning initiative. 97 To help me code and organize the individual and focus group transcripts into a set of data that I could analyze, I used NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software program. I began the inductive analysis process as iterative rounds of descriptive coding, which summarizes in a word or a short phrase the basic topic of a passage within the transcript (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldana, 2013). The topic describes the text selected from the data, rather than a summary of the content. However, given the interpretive and reflective nature of analysis, I constantly reflected on what I was reading in the transcripts throughout the descriptive coding process to focus my attention on understanding the meaning of the participants’ stories, not just focusing on the words they used (Saldana, 2013). Through this interpretative act of trying to understand and make sense of what these teachers were sharing with me, I also tried to reflect on the many ways my interpretations were likely being guided the different aspects I was bringing to the process (Charmaz, 2006). For example, my background knowledge as a teacher and facilitator, my previous beliefs about participants’ perspectives, and my own understandings and beliefs about relational learning and PLCs all contributed to my interpretations. Through this reflective and interpretive process of descriptive coding, I built a thick and rich summary of the data (Saldana, 2013). Categorizing. Using Saldana’s (2013) description of qualitative data analysis guided me in transitioning beyond initial coding to categorization that reflected recurring patterns observed across the data. According to Saldana (1995), as data analysis moves from real to abstract the analysis evolves from codes to themes. The transition occurs through the labelling of codes, the development of categories from multiple codes as they are compared to each other and consolidated in different ways, to themes representing more general, higher-level abstract concepts, and ending with an interrelated set of concepts that lead toward the development of 98 theory. Through the initial descriptive coding process, the data were grouped into 33 different codes. Reading through the coded data, I noticed patterns beginning to emerge as I organized and re-organized the data. The categories I created from the codes when analyzing the data described the data collected, but also conveyed my interpretations of the data. For instance, when I analyzed some of the data (coded as time to commit, commit to time, and long term), I interpreted that the time investment that participants often talked about seemed to refer to the time participants had to discuss, reflect, and generally engage in collaborative inquiry with their teams and the larger PLC. According to Saldana (2013), there is not assumption with qualitative data analysis that the researcher will “ get coding right” the first time, and so it is necessary to approach categorization with a flexible mindset and leave space for new connections and “families” to be formed (p. 10). As concrete ideas moved to more abstract concepts, I constantly revisited and refined categories as I reflected deeply on emergent patterns and meanings of human experience (Saldana, 2013). I placed the following codes into these categories: 99 Table 2 Initial Categories CODES CATEGORY Time to commit, commit to time Long term Long term Reaction to negativity Complaining Motivation Reactions Becoming the expert Acknowledgement of others’ expertise Expertise Support Connection Culture Invitation Relational Culture Safety Guarded Vulnerability Judgment Comfort zone/challenge Feelings when interacting Collective brainstorming Problem solving Collective questioning Prioritizing Collective knowledge Collective thinking Flexibility Change of being/behaviour Change of thinking Research Cyclical learning Learning Real Emotion Well-being Normalizing Genuine interaction Themes. The process of creating themes from the coded data involves analyzing portions of data with a thematic statement (Saldana, 2013). This process allows the development of higher-level theoretical constructs, essentially bringing the data from a more concrete to an abstract level. Saldana (2013) described a theme as “a phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and/or what it means” (p. 139). Generally, a theme captures the basis of the 100 experience into a meaningful whole (DeSantis & Ugarriza, 2000), and provides descriptions of behaviour and/or explanations for why something happens (Saldana, 2013). Throughout the analysis process, I went back and forth between focus group and individual interview transcripts, and read through my researcher observations in cycles of analysis (Saldana, 2013) that allowed me to build a fuller context for the narratives that were shared by the participants about their experiences in the various aspects of the CR4YR PLC initiative. 101 Table 3 Themes developed from Categories CODE CATEGORY THEME Reaction to negativity Complaining Motivation Reactions Theme 1 – Being authentic as a person and a professional Real Emotion Well-being Normalizing Genuine interaction Becoming the expert Acknowledgement of others’ expertise Expertise Safety Guarded Vulnerability Judgment Comfort zone/challenge Feelings when interacting Support Connection Culture Invitation Relational culture Theme 2: Building a relational culture of learners Time to commit, commit to time Long term Long term Flexibility Change of behaviour/being Change of thinking Research Cyclical learning Learning Theme 3: The learning process through change of practice Collective brainstorming Problem solving Collective questioning Prioritizing Collective knowledge Collective thinking I derived these themes by integrating related categories and by paying attention to repeated ideas through the participants’ stories (Saldana, 2013). By developing themes in this way, I continually reflected on participants’ meaning while continuing to read through all of the transcripts. Saldana (2013) suggested theming the data in this way is an appropriate way to integrate data from interviews and conversations. By narrowing the data into what is essential 102 (the construct of meaning suggested by the data), insightful discoveries emerge. As I describe in the following table, each theme has a number of sub-themes that describe certain aspects of the theme in more detail. Table 4 Themes and Sub-themes Theme Sub-themes Being authentic as a person and a professional 1. 1. Learning with and from others 2. 2. Letting go of unrealistic expectations 3. 3. Acknowledge the expertise in colleagues and themselves 4. The fear of judgment and the value of risk-taking Building a relational culture of learners 1. 1. Building a safe space of relational learning 2. 2. Continuity: engaging in meaningful experiences over time 3. 3. Dealing with negative experiences The learning process through change of practice 4. 1. Collective knowledge building to change practice 2. Diversity in teacher teams provided co-learning environments 3. Impacts of PLC collaboration on schools 4. Change of beliefs and attitudes The themes reflect my interpretation of the participants’ descriptions of themselves as a learner, a teacher, and a colleague learning alongside others. These themes also reflect the developing narrative of how the participants in this case study experienced professional learning from their particular perspective as a teacher. Recognizing my influence in how the themes emerged from my interpretations and organizing of the data, it was important for me to also reflect on the themes in terms of how I engaged as a researcher and as someone who had insider knowledge of the teachers and their experiences throughout this initiative. The themes tell a story about this 103 particular group of teachers engaging in a PLC at a time when there was a need to grow relationally and intellectually. The themes are described in detail in Chapter Five. Trustworthiness. Given the interpretive nature of qualitative research, establishing a set of characteristics designed to adequately evaluate the variety of studies carried out under the broad umbrella of qualitative research remains an ongoing challenge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Merriam (1988) described early efforts to establish guidelines for evaluating internal and external validity as well as reliability of qualitative research through ensuring consistency and clarity in research design. Merriam suggested using strategies such as triangulation of data, member checks, and production of thick and rich written reports of the cases to ensure that readers have a clear understanding of the context within which the phenomenon is being studied. Over the years, the notion of developing a strong level of trustworthiness in qualitative research has become a common guiding feature for evaluating qualitative studies (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Stake, 1995). Reliability and validity are terms that are often paired with a positivist paradigm; whereas, trustworthiness is more congruent with a social constructivist research perspective. Since the replication of a qualitative study is often impossible, Morse and Richards (2013) suggested focusing on credibility, transferability of results, and dependability of results to show trustworthiness. Recognizing the interpretive nature of qualitative research in general, and case studies in particular, Stake (1995) challenged the notion of establishing a set of evaluative characteristics and suggested that researchers need to take responsibility for ensuring a rich, full, and detailed account of all aspects of their research process from which readers may determine the trustworthiness of the report. According to Stige, Malterud, and Midtgarden (2009), trustworthiness of a study is intricately tied to the need to pay attention to context when evaluating research findings. In addition, Richards and Morse (2013) suggested that qualitative 104 researchers claim trustworthiness through a thorough account of the research process by logging “each significant decision and the interpretation of each discovery” (p. 95). When interpretations are presented systematically, in relation to the literature, it is possible to demonstrate the “most plausible explanations” of the analysis (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012, p. 10). The conclusions are trustworthy and believable when they reflect the participants’ and the researchers’ interpretation of the data; however, the conclusions are considered as only one plausible interpretation from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The ongoing debate about the possibility and need to validate the truth of qualitative research reflects a long-standing tension about how to hold researchers accountable to their representations of the research (Richardson, 2000). This debate is fueled by the differences of world views and theories of knowledge among the research community. For example, Stige et al. (2009) contended that strategies such as triangulation, multiple coding, and respondent validation that are deemed to be effective measures for ensuring research quality can be considered “technical fixes,” that contribute to quality of research only when they are understood within the beliefs of the researcher and so are also part of the interpretive nature of all qualitative research (p. 1505). Similarly, difference in beliefs about knowledge also complicates the debate about research evaluation because it obstructs the process of challenging or critiquing research from others coming from epistemologically different foundations, which may lead to fragmentation in the research field (Stige et al., 2009). Stige et al. (2009) proposed an evaluation agenda that consists of producing rich and substantive accounts of the data that focus on appropriate representation and usefulness of the research for scholarship and practice. In considering the design for this study I aimed to ensure I was weaving a sense of methodological congruence connecting the research questions, the methodology, the data 105 collection, and analysis with my social constructivist perspective, which can offer support the overall trustworthiness of the study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Creswell, 2003; Stake, 1995). To further support trustworthiness in this study I used multiple sources of data consisting of focus group interviews and individual interviews, along with the use of my researcher observations to further inform, enrich, and build on the emerging themes, and offered a detailed description of analysis process. I generated a description of the participants’ experiences from their stories of their experiences that provided a rich narrative of relational learning in community. I member checked with my participants, emailing the transcripts of their interviews (individual and focus group) for their approval and the opportunity to add any further clarification to their thoughts and experiences at that time. Finally, I aimed to establish a level of trustworthiness in my findings through offering participants’ own voices, in the form of direct quotes, throughout the writing of the findings to illustrate and exemplify the ways I interpreted their experiences through the analysis process. 3.8 Summary To study teacher learning experiences within PLCs from a relational learning lens, I conducted an instrumental case study of a PLC in the CR4YR professional learning initiative that provided opportunities for teachers to inquire into their practice through on-going learning with and from other colleagues. Data for this study included individual interviews and focus group interviews. Researcher observations provided additional insights that helped develop the narrative context for understanding how teachers were experiencing professional learning, with a specific focus on relationality. I used inductive and deductive data analysis processes that lead to the emergence of three broad themes: being authentic as a person and a professional, building a 106 relational culture of learners, and the learning process through change of practice. In the next chapter, I bring the case to life through providing a rich, detailed description of the CR4YR initiative as well as a detailed description of the teams of teachers from this study. 107 CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY Professional learning has become somewhat of a buzzword in the 21st century (Mockler, 2013), and there are many interpretations of how and why it should be fostered in the educational system. The concept of professional learning in this case study was informed by the complexity of teacher learning, an undertaking that involves teacher’s past experiences, prior knowledge, and current practices and beliefs (Muijs et al., 2014). The teachers in this case shared experiences that described their practices, their beliefs, and their learning within a PLC. This collective professional learning opportunity provided a situated learning experience wherein teachers engaged with other teachers to focus on their particular practice within the larger scope of their work in classrooms and in the school (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). In this chapter, I bring the case to life by describing in the provincial initiative, CR4YR, within which the teachers in this study carried out their professional learning in their PLC. After describing this context, I provide a detailed description of the learning teams of teachers who served as participants for this study. 4.1 Overview of the Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) Initiative The goal of the British Columbia provincial initiative called Changing Results for Young Readers (CR4YR) was to increase the success of students through investing in teachers’ learning. Each year, the teachers involved with the initiative focused on increasing the number of their students who were developing the necessary strategies and confidence they needed to become successful readers. The initiative was based on the foundational principle that all students can learn, and it is the teacher’s job to uncover the students’ strengths and use that as a starting point for literacy instruction. In the PLC sessions, the teachers were exposed to a variety of evidence- 108 based practices that focused on comprehension, engagement, inclusion, and social and emotional learning. For instance, by using Vygotsky’s (1987) zone of proximal development, teachers were encouraged to determine where students were in their continuum of learning in order to provide specific instruction at the point when students can use the critical information to further develop their reading skills. A model of teaching emergent reading based on the Reading Recovery philosophy was used to help teachers understand the complexity of the reading process system (Johnson & Keier, 2010). Similarly, foundational concepts from Universal Design for Learning (Katz, 2012) were used to provide teachers with the theoretical knowledge of differentiated instruction, with the intended purpose of developing a collective philosophy of inclusion for all readers in the classroom. The teachers were encouraged to focus on a strength-based model of differentiated instruction. Teachers were encouraged to slow down their teaching in order to be present with their students and focus on shifting their mindset to embrace the continuum of learning. This mind shift was not only to focus on strength-based instruction rather than a deficit model (what is wrong with the students? why aren’t they reading?), nor to focus on reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, but to consider how to assist in developing students’ reading process system (Clay, 1991). By focusing on strategies rather than skills, students were given the space to make meaning of their text and become engaged readers. The focus was not on students being able to read, but developing students who chose to read. 4.2 Roles of the Educators Taking Part in the CR4YR Initiative Due to the enormity of implementing a province-wide initiative, there were many roles and responsibilities within the CR4YR framework. The initiative was designed and implemented 109 by the CR4YR Provincial Resource Team, which included the Superintendent of Reading at the B.C. Ministry of Education, BCTF representatives, and literacy experts. The CR4YR provincial resource team informed the direction of the initiative and moved the visioning of the initiative into actionable steps towards implementation. The provincial facilitators were approached by the resource team to work with individual school districts and assist and accelerate learning with the teachers. Provincial facilitators went to each school district four times throughout the year and facilitated PLC sessions. The role of the facilitator was important for providing research of reading pedagogy for the participants to consider as they engaged with their colleagues in learning about their teaching. The necessary criteria of each facilitator involved having expertise in literacy, expertise in facilitating learning with teachers, and expertise in the framework of inquiry. Each district had one or two Early Reading Advocates (ERAs) who were employed at the district level and held positions of literacy specialization within the district. The Early Reading Advocates were responsible for working side-by-side the facilitators, essentially being apprenticed in the art of facilitation, as well as looking after the logistics of the PLC sessions. This leadership of the community from trusted educators whom the teachers knew was likely an important aspect of the success of this initiative. These ERAs seemed to help in the development of the safe space for teachers to learn with and from each other, building with them a learning environment that was conducive to taking risks in changing and improving teaching practices. At the same time, the facilitators provided capacity-building for the ERAs, while the ERAs provided local context for the facilitators to better understand how to meet the needs of the teachers. This layered capacity-building was an effective leadership structure that likely contributed to ongoing and meaningful learning for the teachers who participated, and those working with them. In many districts, the ERAs took on a further role of working collaboratively 110 with the other PLCs members in their classrooms (co-teaching, holding demonstration lessons, video-taping and providing resources). Three times throughout the year, the resource team, facilitators and ERAs would gather for two days of professional learning and developing a shared vision of the initiative for moving forward. My role in the CR4YR initiative was an ERA for my school district, which complemented my role within the district as a literacy specialist, where my work was to promote and support professional learning in areas of literacy development. Similar to many specialized roles in schools (McGee & Lawrence, 2009), my work increasingly involved working directly with teachers helping them to develop capabilities to improve their practice. I recognized the importance of this opportunity and enthusiastically agreed to facilitate PLC sessions that deepened learning for teachers and led to ongoing inquiry into practice. This opportunity allowed me further connection with primary teachers who were exploring their practice through learning about reading pedagogy and allowed me to further develop my facilitation skills when working with teachers. In addition, I appreciated the opportunity to connect with the CR4YR provincial resource team three times throughout the year when we gathered for our own professional learning as teacher educators. During these provincial sessions, ERAs, facilitators, and literacy experts gathered to explore our own practice through learning about various reading pedagogies and facilitation techniques to further develop the way we worked with teachers in our districts. We were essentially engaging in our own collaborative learning through the CR4YR network. 4.3 Structure of the CR4YR Initiative The CR4YR initiative was implemented and funded by the B.C. Ministry of Education for three years between September 2012 – June 2015. During this time frame, over 30,000 111 students and 2000 educators were involved within 57 school districts across the province. Teachers in each district were brought together to create a PLC and engage in collaborative inquiry. Each year, 12 teachers from each school district were provided release time from their teaching positions to come together five to seven times through the year for a half day. Some districts added funding from their budget and released the teachers for additional days or provided full day release for the participating teachers. The district support provided the necessary time to meet with colleagues, reflect on their own practice, and learn with others involved in the PLC. An important aspect of the CR4YR structure was that the teacher teams came from the same school. The teachers applied to be part of the initiative each year and join a team involving at least two classroom teachers from the same school, and often a non-enrolling educator (literacy specialist, counselor, librarian, learning resource teacher). The design of the school teams purposefully maximized the learning that happened in between the district PLC meetings by encouraging daily conversations between team members at the school. The design aligned with research on teacher team learning (Crow & Pounder, 2000; Dee et al., 2006; Park et al,, 2005; Pounder, 1999; Sun et al., 2017; Vangrieken et al., 2016), suggesting that structures need to support learning happening at the school level between members of the team on a consistent basis. The PLC learning began within collaborative inquiry as teachers decided upon an area of their reading instruction they were interested in learning more about through research and practice. All inquiry questions had something to do with improving reading for students; however, the teams brought in their own curiosities about teaching students to read while developing a question. 112 Teachers were encouraged to choose an inquiry question based on the following criteria (Jeroski, 2015): • You care about it, • It is strength-based, it is optimistic (it is fun to think and learn about), • It focuses on your classroom practice, • It is within your control, • It is important: it would make a difference, • You can do it: it is manageable and possible, you will be able to observe/find evidence, • It is honest: it is a real question, • It will lead to action, and • It makes a difference. Using these criteria, teachers formed an inquiry question to guide their learning and change of practice. They engaged in the following steps of collaborative inquiry, called Spirals of Inquiry, throughout the year (Halbert & Kaser, 2013): 1. Scanning for information (What is going on for our learners?) 2. Focusing attention (Where are we going to put our attention?) 3. Developing a hunch (What’s leading to this situation?) 4. New professional learning (How and where will we learn more about what we need to do?) 5. Taking action (What will we do differently?) 6. Checking (How will we check that we made enough of a difference?) Although the steps are represented through a numerical sequence, the process of collaborative inquiry is generally not a linear one. Teachers often found themselves at different areas of the 113 spiral of inquiry based on their own learning needs and the progression of their inquiry. By engaging in inquiry, the teachers were positioned to take on the role of a practitioner researcher who was seeking out emergent possibilities within their practice. When teachers have the opportunity to engage in inquiry with other educators, they draw on their own resources in order to deepen their learning by trying out new, evidenced-based ideas in their classrooms and draw on the support of their colleagues as they work through inquiry cycles together (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; McGee & Lawrence, 2009). Collaborative inquiry is about being open to new learning and being willing to take some actionable steps towards changing practice in some way. Although inquiry questions are integral in the process of inquiry, there is more emphasis on the learning that is the by-product of questioning practice and trying out different strategies in order to determine if the efforts are making a difference for the learners (Halbert & Kaser, 2014). An inquiry-orientated educator is interested in research-based evidence, which includes research that is generated through inquiring into one’s practice (Halbert & Kaser, 2014; McGee & Lawrence, 2009). The framework was developed by the CR4YR provincial resource team with the idea that the teacher teams could have either the same inquiry question or different ones, depending on the learning needs of the teachers (Halbert & Kaser, 2013). Cherkowski and Schnellert’s (2018) study of professional learning through inquiry reported that having different focus questions for teachers within the same, larger inquiry is an innovative approach to professional learning. However having different questions within one inquiry does not seem to happen often. The teachers in this study had the opportunity to engage in inquiry with other educators, drawing on their own resources in order to deepen their learning by trying out new, evidenced-based ideas in their 114 classrooms and drawing on the support of their colleagues as they worked through inquiry cycles together. 4.4 The Power of the Case Study Student In addition to the whole class reading instruction, CR4YR teachers focused on one student who they were concerned about in relation to reading – this student became their case study student. If there was a non-enrolling teacher involved in the teacher team, that educator would generally have the same case study student as the classroom teacher, in order to allow for collaborative dialogue to ensue. Focusing on the case study student allowed teachers to tweak their practice and notice the results without feeling overwhelmed with tracking a whole classes’ progress. The phrase tweaking practice was intentionally used by the CR4YR provincial team as a way to create a level of comfort with teachers’ engagement in making minor changes to their practice and reflecting on the results in a non-threatening environment. By focusing on one student, the teachers could frame their inquiry to be responsive to the student’s subsequent actions, while examining their own beliefs. Once the teacher chose the case study student, they were encouraged to have multiple conversations with the case study student about their own interests, learning, and abilities. It was very important for the student’s voice to be heard and considered when reflecting on their own professional learning, their practice, and how it was impacting their case study student. 4.5 Structure of the PLC Sessions Each Year The first and the last PLC sessions were structured around pre- and post-data collection for the teachers. At the first session, the teachers were introduced to the spirals of inquiry 115 (Halbert & Kaser, 2013) and given some time to discuss with their school teams a direction they were interested in exploring together. Before they returned for the second session, the teachers were encouraged to choose a case study student and have a focused conversation with that student to find out more about them as a learner and as a reader. The teachers were asked to fill out a form called the case study cover sheet (see Appendix C) describing their student. Some of the questions asked on the form were: What do you know about this child’s reading/literacy? What else do you need to find out about the child’s language/literacy/reading in order to create a strong plan for improving the child’s reading/literacy? The purpose of the case study cover sheet was to focus on the strengths of the case study student and what that student needed to increase their success in learning. This information was sent to the BC Ministry of Education to be synthesized and analyzed looking for trends in the case study students’ strengths and needs. The purpose was not only to have a provincial database of case study students for project evaluation, but also to feed the information back to the teachers so that they could gain further knowledge of the trends that were showing up provincially. The next sessions were similarly structured to allow time for professional learning in the area of emergent reading, time to collectively reflect with school teams and make plans moving forward, sharing of new knowledge or understandings with the PLC, sharing of case study students’ progress, and individually writing in reflective journals. The school teams filled out a specific data collection form called Case study: Record of individual actions/results (see Appendix D) that comprised of the questions: What did you do? What happened? What did your team learn? What will you do next to support this student? This form gave the school teams a framework for reflection and actionable next steps. This form was collected each session and sent to personnel at the Ministry of Education for collation and analysis. Before each session, 116 members of the resource team sent ERAs and facilitators a PowerPoint presentation that would lead the learning for that session, if the ERAs and facilitators chose to use it. It was not prescriptive, but rather added a level of scaffolding by the resource team, if it was needed at the district level. ERAs and facilitators worked together to plan the session in order to meet the needs of the teachers. The focus for our sessions reflected the teachers’ interests and needs in relation to what they were learning about their case student. We listened to the teachers’ discussions and questions and developed future learning to engage in concepts that were important for their ongoing professional learning. For example, during one session we focused on Vygotsky’s (1934) zone of proximal development and how the theory could be used to inform pedagogy. In another session we used Marie Clay’s (1991) readings to help teachers understand the complexity of the reading process system, with the goal of increasing their awareness of how each child develops a unique understanding of literacy based on many variables. The final session consisted of writing letters to (provincial) colleagues that described some aspect of their learning that they wanted to share with other teachers around the province. Those letters were then published on the CR4YR website to be easily accessed by other professionals. 4.6 Research Gathered by the Ministry of Education on CR4YR Horizon Research & Evaluation Consulting gathered qualitative and quantitative data throughout the three years of the initiative and produced a report indicating the impact of the CR4YR initiative (Jeroski, 2015). The report was focused on student learning, specifically students’ increased ability in reading and how the students were evolving as literate people in our school communities. The report included a survey sent out to teachers once in the three-year 117 initiative to gather data on teacher’s instruction and change of practice. In terms of qualitative research, each year the participants filled out a case study cover sheet and the Case study: Record of individual actions/results (described in previous section) to share their knowledge of the students with the CR4YR community. In addition to a summary of the 900 provincial case studies, 120 case studies were analyzed based on the research question: How can we best meet the needs of our young readers? The purposive sampling was derived from all the students who had not made progress, all the students who had made significant progress in addition to one to three more case study students from each participating district. From this extensive analysis (Jeroski, 2015), the following themes emerged: 1. Developing a relationship – teachers described students in positive and hopeful terms, 2. Considering the student’s interests/passions, 3. Teachers enabling student choices, 4. Making meaning from text (purpose), 5. Ensuring individual support – capacity building with all people in the building, and 6. Collaboration. These themes allowed the resource team to see the impact of the CR4YR initiative on the teachers who participated and their professional capacity. Overall, based on the CR4YR results (Jeroski, 2015), teachers were most likely to focus on increasing student confidence and foster personal responsibility and motivation in learning to read. In terms of teacher instructional changes noted in the survey results (Jeroski, 2015), teachers reported that CR4YR had a strong impact on instructional practices attributed to an increased use of evidence-based practices and specific strategies. The largest increase of impact for teachers was their focus on student engagement and the joy of reading. 118 In terms of quantitative research, teachers filled out a snapshot of their class, without referring to students’ names, describing how the teachers perceived their student’s reading ability through observation and knowledge of their students’ abilities and based on the BC performance standards for education. Students were given a 1, 2, 3, 4 based on the performance standards at the beginning of the initiative (usually in October) and again at the end of the yearly initiative (usually in May), in order to compare the scores of the students. This provided a basic overview of how the students were increasing in reading ability on a provincial scale. Overall, 94 % of students increased their reading comprehension, with 40% making major progress and 54% making some progress (Jeroski, 2015). The B.C. Ministry of Education and the CR4YR Provincial Resource Team designed the CR4YR initiative to collect data on student learning. Although there was a short survey asking about changes in approaches to teaching emergent reading there was not a specific focus on teacher learning. Professional learning is documented as having the potential to enhance teaching innovation (Timperley, 2011), aid curricular and teacher education reform initiatives (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012) and impact student learning outcomes (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). In many studies on PLCs there is documented evidence of teacher learning woven into the study (Ahmed et al., 2016; Chauraya & Brodie, 2017; Cherrington & Thornton, 2015; Chestnut, 2015; Christ et al., 2017; Nicholson et al., 2016), however there was little attention given to researching teacher learning within this initiative. Therefore, given the importance of teacher learning to improving student learning, and that these teachers engaged in this professional learning initiative over several years, I determined that this was a good opportunity for researching teacher professional learning in this PLC. 119 4.7 Challenges Experienced Throughout the CR4YR Initiative in my District Throughout the three-year initiative that the CR4YR was implemented, I noted in my research observations some challenges that came up in my school district. Some of the main challenges to the initiative involved the facilitation, teachers using ineffective practice or not changing practice at all, as well as a provincial teachers’ union strike. The CR4YR provincial resource team designed the facilitation specifically to involve an outside expert to come into the district and work closely with the Early Reading Advocates (ERAs) and the participants. It was intentionally designed this way in order to give the district an outside perspective and bring a level of expertise to the PLC sessions. However, in my school district, I noticed that the presence of the outside influence often seemed to inhibit teachers’ openness and feelings of community in some participants, which was counter-productive to what we were trying to develop through this experience. Another challenge involved how teachers were adopting new practices. Some teachers were very quick to adopt new ideas without considering if it would work within their context, some teachers adopted ideas but did not have a good understanding of the theory, and some teachers did not change practice at all. Timperley (2011) calls the process of adopting practices too quickly or not effectively, over-assimilation, and suggests that when “the theory behind a strategy is poorly understood these adaptations are likely to be inconsistent with the theory underpinning them, and therefore, less effective” (p. 63). In addition, the Ministry only funded the release time for 12 teachers each year to take part in the initiative, which is a number much lower than the amount of applications received each year. Many interested teachers were not able to take part and, as a result, the needs of many teachers were not met in our district. 120 Finally, political unrest during the three-year initiative (2012-2015) that led to a sustained teacher strike was a challenge to the intended collaborative nature of CR4YR. The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) was exercising job action over the course of the initiative, meaning that teachers were restricted by their union to only engage in work carried out within a prescribed scheduled work day. This job action eventually led to a full strike lasting almost three months. This political climate made any kind of collaboration between teachers and the Ministry of Education difficult due to a general feeling of uncertainty and mistrust. According to the BCTF (British Columbia Teachers Federation, n.d.), “Teachers feel that they are being bullied by government. Imposing a contract by legislation—again—rather than engaging in any real negotiations, is using government power to bully. The provincial government has refused repeated requests to meet the BCTF to discuss the very real concerns of teachers.” In contrast, the Education Minister stated in a press release, "It's unfortunate that rhetoric and name-calling has overtaken a thoughtful and constructive approach to resolving the impasse through mediation. When mediation begins in the near future, I hope the discussion will unfold in a respectful way" (Province of British Columbia, 2012). From December 2012 when the BCTF and BC Public Schools Employers Association (BCPSEA) began discussions to prepare for bargaining a new collective agreement, through to October 2013 with negotiations becoming more confrontational, and an expected strike was looming, the teachers in the CR4YR continued their work together. There was certainly stress and uncertainty about what the potential strike would mean for the CR4YR teachers, as they were participating in a provincial learning initiative. In March 2014, the government imposed a partial lock-out and teachers’ pay was docked, leading to the full strike that started on June 27, 2014 and lasted until September 22, 2014 when teachers returned back to work. This was a tense and stressful time for all teachers in 121 the province who felt a sense of a dysfunctional relationship between BC teachers and the Ministry of Education that often played out in public through social media and conversations in the community. Of course, the CR4YR experience was impacted by the strike in terms of lost data, canceled sessions, and a general sense of unease and lack of trust that had to be negotiated as all of us in the school system had to heal relationships and re-build trust in our own ways. Based on our experiences throughout this imposed fracture in our work our PLC became an important environment to connect with colleagues; however, the heightened sense of mistrust for some teachers led to difficulty focusing on improving practice. 4.8 Overview of Participants through a view of their Learning Teams To learn about and understand teachers’ experiences of professional learning throughout their full experience of the CR4YR, teachers were invited to participate in focus group conversations. Ten teachers agreed, and so I was able to engage in conversations with them about what it meant to them to learn together with their colleagues over the course of their time in this PLC, and to begin to understand how a relational learning perspective might offer new insights on how to create conditions for meaningful teacher professional learning. Through using the individual interviews that were previously carried out with these ten teachers, I was able to get a longer term view of the PLC and a fuller understanding of the importance of relationships in their professional learning experiences. Aligned with the relational learning theoretical underpinnings of this study, in this section I provide a detailed description of the teacher teams, giving a sense of who they are as teachers and what drew them together to form their inquiry teams. All the participants engaged in CR4YR for two consecutive years; however, due to the limited funding it was not possible for the same teachers to participate for a third year in our 122 school district. Two of the teachers, Lynn and Sadie, did not participate in focus group interviews so their voices are not part of the findings, but they are included in the descriptions of the teams to offer a full picture of the groups that engaged together in professional learning over the course of several years. It is unfortunate that these two teachers did not wish to participate in the focus group conversations for this study. It is a potential limitation to have two teachers who did participate in the initiative, but who did not contribute their views to this study, given that they might have had differing or contrasting views that might have given an even richer understanding of what it meant to participate in this PLC over time. Knowing the generosity of time and energy that it takes for teachers to participate in any research initiative, I am grateful to those who were able to attend and contribute their views and insights. All participants are identified with pseudonyms. Table 5 Research participants grouped by collaborative school teams School Name Years teaching How long in current role Role Grade level School Team A Lynn* 22 22 Classroom teacher K-2 Shanna 14 New to role Literacy teacher K-1 Ann 6 New to role Classroom teacher 1-3 School Team B Coral 25+ 25 Classroom teacher 1 Lerae 13 New to role Classroom teacher 1 Molly 20 New to role Literacy teacher K-1 School Team C Clea 25+ 20 Learning Resource teacher/Literacy teacher K-5 Diana 10 New to role Indigenous education teacher K-5 Sadie* 10 5 Classroom teacher K-1 123 No designated school team Lita 25+ 3 Literacy teacher K-1 Kristy 20 2 Literacy teacher K-1 Tania 25+ 5 Librarian/ Counsellor K-8 *Note. Lynn and Sadie participated in individual interviews but not focus group interviews. They are described in this section to add information about the teams. Lynn and Sadie are not represented in the findings chapter. School Team A are teachers in a very small, rural school with high student needs, located in a lower socio-economic area consisting mostly of farm land. Many students have single parents and work on farms to help out their families. The classrooms are organized in a multi-age setting and personalized instruction is necessary to meet the students’ diverse learning needs. There is a high percentage of students on Individual Education Plans (IEPs) due to the students having ministry-designated categorization of special needs. The staff is very committed and cohesive and there are many school-wide initiatives developed by the teachers to meet the needs of their students. Lynn, Shanna and Ann formed a team when they participated in the CR4YR for the first two years of the initiative. Lynn, a primary teacher with 22 years of experience as a classroom teacher, was teaching a multi-age class at the time of participation. She was curious about how to engage her students, specifically those students who were struggling with developing a reading processing system. She chose to inquire into using older students as literacy coaches to work with her primary students on some of the fundamentals of reading using strategies. Her inquiry question was, How does the interaction of buddies having literate conversations about reading strategies effect student learning and student engagement in reading? She began the inquiry by spending a month teaching the older buddy grade 4/5 class how to be literacy coaches and how to use reading strategies effectively. The school agreed to use the same language when discussing reading 124 strategies and the same resources so that there was a sense of continuity among the students’ learning. Once it was time to have buddy classes, the students worked together supporting the younger students as they read, which included having conversations on reading strategies. This inquiry benefited all her own primary students in their acquisition of effectively using reading strategies, but also the older students increased in their ability to read and identify ways to solve unknown words. Lynn initially participated in individual interviews but was unable to participate in the focus group interviews. Ann, an early career primary teacher with six years of experience, also taught in a multi-age classroom. Ann described herself as shy; however, she connects well with others individually by listening and valuing others’ opinions. She described that she seeks out opportunities to engage in collaborative inquiry in the district and with her school colleagues. Lynn and Ann decided to co-inquire into aspects of engagement in reading for primary students in a multi-age classroom. While the overarching inquiry focused on a similar question, they each decided to have their own question to drive their inquiry. Having similar questions allowed them to have conversations about their topic, while satisfying their own specific curiosity with their individual question. Ann’s inquiry question was, What difference do I notice in student use of strategies for decoding text by modeling strategies when I read aloud? Ann specifically wanted to connect with Lynn and Shanna around this topic, as they were more experienced and could offer insight into her current classroom challenge. She began using a teaching resource recommended by Lynn and Shanna that outlined effective, research-based reading strategies in a manner that was easy to follow and provided the necessary justification for the use of strategies. Other teachers participating in CR4YR recommended transferring the strategies into kid friendly language in order to further engage students in the use of the 125 strategies. The use of kid friendly strategies to use with students was beneficial for all her students. Throughout her time in the CR4YR, I noticed that Ann’s confidence and competence teaching reading continued to grow with experience and engagement with her colleagues in this learning. Shanna is a literacy intervention teacher with 14 years of experience as a classroom teacher, with a quiet, but powerful presence. Shanna had a wealth of knowledge to share when she worked collaboratively with both Lynn and Ann on their inquiry questions. She was another person in the classroom that interacted with the students and could try out different strategies with the students and notice the impact of the practice. Shanna also acted as a co-inquirer because she could have conversations with both Lynn and Ann about their observations and suggest professional resources (books or articles) that may further their learning in the field of literacy. Shanna had increased her leadership in the district since taking part in CR4YR and often facilitates school learning opportunities such as workshops, books clubs, and co-teaching with colleagues. The three acted as a team during the CR4YR sessions by co-planning and reflecting on their inquiry, and they acted as a team at the school level by continuing those conversations and seeing the impact in the classroom with the students. School Team B is a group of teachers within a large school in our district in a lower socio-economic area. The teaching staff is historically transient, and lacks the stable relationships that students form with the teaching staff over years. Regardless of the high needs of this school, the three teachers participating in CR4YR were very committed to their work and to their students. They laughed a lot, and seemed to have a playful demeanour when participating in the PLC sessions. They brought a great deal of joy to our PLC sessions. Coral, Lerae, and Molly were a part of the first cohort in CR4YR and all participated as a school team for the first two 126 years of the initiative. All three participants chose to conduct the same inquiry working with two different case study students that they were all teaching on a daily basis. This approach allowed them to discuss approaches together and discuss what they were noticing with their individual students. Molly worked with both the case study students as a literacy intervention teacher and had the benefit of sharing her insights from an individualized support perspective, while Coral and Lerae worked with the case study students in the classroom. In the first year of the initiative the team developed the inquiry question, How do I encourage my case students to self-regulate so I can get down to the art of teaching and they can get down to the art of learning? The second year of the initiative the team decided to continue inquiring into self-regulation with their students in more depth, often focusing on co-planning learning environments that would be conducive to attending to students’ ability to regulate their behaviour and emotions in order to engage in learning. The case study students chosen had high levels of anxiety and shared characteristics of oppositional defiance disorder. The students were reading well below grade level and were aware of the fact that they were falling behind academically. There was a noted lack of confidence in the case study student’s day to day interactions in the classroom. The teachers decided to try out pairing the case study students with other students who could benefit from working with a buddy who was reading at an emergent level with the intent of focusing on building the confidence of the case study students and giving them a chance to shine. By using the concept, teach and it becomes part of you, the teachers were able to provide the opportunity for the students to experience a positive encounter with reading, and, at the same time, increasing the students’ friend quotient. Upon reflection, the team noticed that all the students benefited when they did not introduce new methods or a change of routine too quickly, but rather they scaffolded the 127 change or new learning and focused on gradual release of responsibility. When the students were given power and confidence there was a significant change of behaviour and greater enthusiasm about reading. The teachers reported that the process was slow at times with many regressions along the way, but with definite glimmers of hope. This team was an interesting team of teachers due to the mix of experience. Coral was a primary teacher with over 25 years of experience and considered by her team to be an expert at teaching students to read. She had been at their school for many years, and had deep roots with the staff members and community. Lerae was new to the school and new to teaching at the early primary level. She had 13 years of experience with elementary school, but mostly in the upper intermediate grades. Molly was fairly new to the district, and new to her role as a literacy intervention teacher; however, she came with over 20 years’ experience teaching early primary and a considerable amount of knowledge and expertise of the reading process system in emergent readers. By teaming up together these three teachers were able to mentor each other through their areas of expertise and gain insight to the families and students they were working with on a daily basis. The team relationship deepened, and noteworthy friendships were developed to the point that they often got together socially and became quite a tightknit group throughout the two years of the initiative, and remain so presently. School C is a group of teachers from another high needs school in a lower socio-economic area with a high population of students of Indigenous heritage. It is a small school with a fairly stable teaching staff that are very committed to working together. The staff room is always filled with laughter and teachers are deeply connected through relationships. Clea, Diana, and Sadie worked together and took part in the CR4YR initiative beginning the second year of the initiative and continued on as a team into the third year. Clea was the one 128 the bring together the two others into a team. She had over 25 years of experience, had worked in the school for many years as a learning resource teacher and a literacy intervention teacher and felt strongly that she should be collaborating more with classroom teachers and other specialists/itinerant teachers in order to benefit children who needed her support more fully. Clea is also a teacher leader in the district and is often someone people seek out for advice and guidance in many areas of education. She is constantly seeking out opportunities to learn how to meet the needs of her diverse students. Clea often engages in professional learning opportunities that will further her knowledge about students with diverse abilities and she shares her knowledge consistently with her colleagues. Clea initially approached Sadie, who was a new teacher to the school and had limited experience teaching early primary (less than five years) and asked her if she would like to sign up for the CR4YR initiative together. Sadie agreed, and then the two teachers approached Diana to be a third member of their team. Diana was a new teacher working at the school as well. She was new to the profession (less than five years of teaching experience) and was at the school part time as an Indigenous literacy teacher. Diana had lots of experience working with students of Indigenous heritage, but she was eager to learn about teaching emergent reading, specifically for students who were struggling in that area. This team developed as the teachers got used to working with each other and focusing on one case study student that they all had contact with through their various teaching roles. Although the team developed into a very cohesive grouping, their strength seemed to be derived from their on-going need for flexibility within their participation in CR4YR and re-designing their inquiry to truly fit their needs as teachers through their on-going learning journey. When this teacher team was about three months into the first year of their inquiry, they approached me and asked if they could consider a new inquiry question that they were more interested in and 129 could move their learning forward in a way that was more beneficial to the team. They adapted their inquiry question a few times, but their over-arching inquiry question centered on, How can we work collaboratively to create a school-wide literacy framework that provides constant support to a struggling learner over multiple contexts? They were able to use similar materials and similar language in multiple contexts for their case study student, with constant discussion and joint decision-making in order to collaboratively plan for not only the benefit of the case study student, but all the students in Sadie’s class. All three teachers would work in Sadie’s classroom at specific times in the week, and they eventually developed a co-planning/co-teaching model that they all described as beneficial. They noticed their case study student was able to generalize learning in multiple contexts, exhibited increased confidence and enthusiasm for reading and began to demonstrate metacognition using reading strategies as needed. In addition, many of the other students were responding positively to the collaborative teaching model that was developed during literacy stations to increase individualized support for specific learning needs. Clea, Diana, and Sadie continued to develop and refine this model in the second year of the initiative, delving deeper into theory that was supporting this new way of teaching and focusing on new learning about reading instruction that could further enhance their co-teaching methods. Sadie was not able to participate in the focus group interviews; therefore, her individual interview data is not represented in Chapter 5. Lita, Kristy, and Tania were all part of different teams that took part in CR4YR. They were the only one of their team to volunteer to participate in this research study. Lita was firmly entrenched in her school after working there for most of her teaching career, more than 20 years. Lita’s school staff experienced a lot of changes in administration and Lita provided a continuity of teacher leadership for her colleagues. She is a warm, friendly person who engages in self- 130 reflection as a regular practice. She cares deeply about her students’ well-being. She has recently retired from teaching, after teaching primary grades for more than 25 years. Her wealth of knowledge about emergent literacy was valued by her team and within the larger district PLC. She was working as a literacy intervention teacher during her participation in CR4YR for the first two years of the initiative. Her inquiry focus remained continuing to deepen her in-class support, by questioning, How can I best meet the needs of my students and work collaboratively and meaningfully with classroom teachers in a support role? She recognized the gift of time and space to connect with the classroom teachers involved and deeply believed in the necessity of breaking out of the traditional education model of isolation. Over the two years of the CR4YR initiative she was able to work with two classroom teachers and develop ways they could co-plan and co-teach in order to benefit not only the students on her case load, but all the students learning to read. Her inquiry was slightly different than many of the others because she inquired into how to support/work side-by-side with the teachers. Kristy had a long history with her school as well. She had worked at the school for most of her teaching career, approximately 20 years, and she had generally taught primary grades, most recently kindergarten. When she participated in CR4YR in the first two years of the initiative, she was working as a literacy intervention teacher and continued the two years with a solid team involving two primary classroom teachers and herself. The school had a history of working within a PLC culture and these teachers were very comfortable working collaboratively, opening up their practice to others and showing vulnerability when encountering challenges. The principal of the school had previously set up time for grade group teachers to meet on a monthly basis and declare a common focus for those meetings. Each month the grade groups would reflect on an area of their practice and share experiences with the others. At times, they brought 131 in books or articles to situate their experiences in research, and sometimes they discussed classroom practice. The impetus for participating in the CR4YR initiative was to provide more structured time for the team to continue their collaborative work with the added twist of a collaborative inquiry focus, which was new for these teachers. They decided to inquire into how to set up a literacy station approach to developing reading and writing based on the Daily Five method outlined by Boushey and Moser (2006) in order to increase independence in their students. Kristy focused her work on how to support the classroom teachers in this endeavour and how she could carry over that framework for independence in her work with specific students from the primary classrooms. Because this school had an established PLC culture, the teachers easily transitioned to working with each other and the larger PLC on continuing work they had already started previously. The PLC culture is now entrenched in this school, because it has become part of the culture with these particular teachers and has now morphed into a continual collaborative inquiry where teachers are able to discuss case study students, noting what is working, what is not working, and collectively brainstorm reasons why. Tania joined the CR4YR initiative in its second year and continued for two consecutive years. Each year she worked with different teachers in her team, due to her itinerant position in the district. She had over 25 years of teaching experience, but a majority of that experience was from teaching outside of British Columbia. At the time of participating in the initiative, Tania was working as an elementary counsellor and a librarian. It was in her capacity as a librarian that she chose to join two classroom teachers with whom she worked closely in that role; however, she explained that her counselling role led to much of the conversations about students’ anxiety and teachers’ stress levels. Her personal inquiry question was similar over the two years as she inquired into how she could best support the reading programs in her school through a 132 collaborative learning approach in library. She found that many picture books had a variety of ways of showing print that expressed emotions, which increased the attention of students and helped them engage more with print as an emotive medium. She determined that when she merged her roles as librarian and counsellor she was able to support reading in a way that made it a positive experience for students, especially students who were struggling with emergent reading. She found that by questioning and going back to earlier parts of a story to check inferences or reflect on evidence, she was able to model that a book can be read as an exploration rather than simply reading a plot from beginning to end. Tania worked closely with her teams on their inquiry questions in a supportive role, but she also had her own inquiry that she conducted simultaneously. She noted that collaboration was a key element in student learning and teacher learning, explaining that collaboration made learning fun and that it was often lost in the recent educational context, due to the demands on teachers. She was determined to bring collaborative learning back into the lives of students, but more emphatically, back into the profession. 4.9 Summary of the Chapter In this chapter I provided a description and context of the case being studied, outlining the design implementation and research of the CR4YR initiative to provide the framework of the PLC studied in this case. I offered a view of the participants taking part in the case study with descriptions of the teacher teams, the specifics of their collaborative inquiries, as well as particular details of the individual teachers that I was able to provide from my insider position as a facilitator and teacher colleague to give a better sense of who these teachers are and why they were drawn together to engage in professional learning. In the next chapter, I provide findings that emerged from my analysis of the teachers’ descriptions of their experiences in the PLC. 133 134 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS This study offers an illustrative example of teacher professional learning from a relational lens, focusing on an important perspective on PLC research that was identified as a gap in current PLC case studies. PLC research tends to focus predominantly on structural or administrative aspects of how to implement PLCs in schools, rather than how teachers learn in relation to others. By understanding teachers’ perspectives on their experiences within PLCs, we can explore the kinds of conditions and characteristics for meaningful and impactful professional learning. In this chapter, I offer a description of the participants’ CR4YR experiences to build a layered and detailed story of what it meant to them to learn in and through relationships with their colleagues. In this way, I aim to highlight the importance of understanding what professional learning meant to them throughout and after a provincially designed PLC initiative as a contribution to building more contextualized accounts of teacher learning in research on PLCs. Through the various conversations with the teachers, and through the subsequent analysis of this data, I learned more about the research question guiding this study: In what ways does using a relational lens offer new insights and understandings about how to grow and improve professional learning for teachers? Throughout this chapter I provide a description of the themes that emerged from the analysis, using examples from the transcripts that highlight these teachers’ perceptions of their experiences participating in CR4YR collaborative inquiry initiative, and from my own observations as an insider throughout this initiative and the research. Together, this data informed my understanding of how relational learning was connected to their specific professional learning experiences, and how their experiences changed over time. The theoretical framework informed my understanding about how relational characteristics, described in this 135 study as caring, belonging within community, and valuing others’ differences, provided insights into what it means to engage in meaningful, ongoing, collective professional learning from the perspective of teachers. Three overarching themes and several sub-themes emerged through the analysis process (Table 6). In the next section I provide an overview of each of these themes using examples from the teachers’ stories to build and grow a layered understanding of professional learning from a relational lens. Table 6 Themes and sub-themes Theme Sub-themes Being authentic as a person and a professional 4. 1. Learning with and from others 5. 2. Letting go of unrealistic expectations 6. 3. Acknowledge the expertise in colleagues and themselves 4. The fear of judgment and the value of risk-taking Building a relational culture of learners 5. 1. Building a safe space of relational learning 6. 2. Continuity: engaging in meaningful experiences over time 7. 3. Dealing with negative experiences The learning process through change of practice 8. 1. Collective knowledge building to change practice 2. Diversity in teacher teams provided co-learning environments 3. Impacts of PLC collaboration on schools 4. Change of beliefs and attitudes Through the iterative process of analyzing the data, I noticed the pattern of authenticity emerging through the conversations as teachers described various ways they appreciated and benefited from building relationships with their colleagues in ways that allowed for them to bring 136 the realness of who they are and what they experience in their work to their collaborative time. This theme of authenticity reflected the connections between teachers’ professional and personal lives, and also their desire to be able to live out the theories they were learning in the PLC sessions in the realities of their classrooms. As I further explored the idea of being authentic, I noticed sub-themes emerging that described the importance for these participants of learning with others, of their ability to take risks in their practice, and of acknowledging expertise in colleagues and themselves. The second theme, building a culture of relational learning, describes how the participants engaged in building community through their PLC experiences over a two-year period. Throughout their stories, I noticed examples of how participants voiced experiences that described the importance for them of working with their colleagues in a safe learning environment that was able to develop over time. It seemed that the extended period of time to grow substantial relationships with their team was a new experience for many of them, and that they came to look forward to relationships with their team that were different from those they had with other colleagues to help them keep moving their learning about teaching moving forward. They described that their sense of safety and comfort for sharing about their practices grew over time, as well as the capacity of the group to continue to grow and refine their collective learning experiences over time. The third theme, the learning process through change of practice, represents how the participants worked and learned together in ways that impacted their classroom practices during and after the CR4YR finished. Within this theme, I heard stories and examples from the participants of how they changed their practice based on their learning with and from others, and how they continued to collaborate and experience lasting impacts of participating in the 137 professional learning initiative. Taken together, the themes that I derived from the narratives of these teachers’ experiences of what it meant to them to learn together with their colleagues over the course of several years builds a portrait of teacher professional learning set within the context of this particular PLC initiative. 5.1 Theme One: Being Authentic as a Person and a Professional The teachers in this study appreciated and valued the PLC time as opportunities to come together with colleagues to discuss, describe, and share their teaching practices, while making practical connections to the theories that they were learning. As they reflected on what this learning opportunity meant to them, their stories seemed to resonate with expressions about the importance of being able to share their experiences in honest, open, and real ways, valuing that they could open up about their successes, and also their challenges and failures of practice. This experience of meeting regularly, with the same teachers, over a long period of time to engage in focused conversations about their students was new for many of these teachers. They agreed that this experience was valuable, and one of the best that they have experienced in their teaching so far. I noted an increase in the participants’ commitment level and engagement within the community as they continued to meet together regularly and began to see the benefit of learning with and from others. As they reflected on why that was, they started to unpack how meaningful it was for them to be able to build trust with their team so that they could start to open up about their feelings of not always being sure of what they were doing or how they were making a difference in their work. They described the importance of this opportunity for being able to show up with each other in a way that was authentic, real, and true to what they were living out in their experiences in the classroom. 138 As I explored the theme of authenticity in the data, I determined that their narratives aligned with Brown’s (2010) definition of authenticity as a “daily practice of letting go of who we think we are supposed to be and embracing who we are” (p. 50). From their experiences, I saw a connection between how they described the importance of authenticity and the ways they were able to learn with and from others, and navigate their expectations of who they felt they with who they thought they should be as teachers. Their stories reflected a learned capacity over time to take risks personally and professionally, knowing that they had the group to go to for support and advice. The participants described how they came to recognize each other as a source of expertise when they engaged openly and honestly with each other about what was working and what was not working well for them in their classrooms. An additional aspect to their sense of authenticity was the importance of experiencing learning in relation to the realities of their classrooms—they benefited the most from the time together when they focused on questions, concerns, and opportunities that were authentic to their students and what they needed to learn. 5.2 Learning with Others and from Others Through the teachers’ conversations I noticed the participants describing that for professional learning to be meaningful and impactful it needed to feel real and relevant to their own context and needs. Some participants acknowledged that collective learning with teachers that was focused on their particular problems and learning interests was more relevant and authentic than just listening to a speaker or reading a book about teaching strategies. By learning alongside others, the participants felt it added a sense of authentic practice to their understanding of emergent reading pedagogy. The conversations in the CR4YR sessions offered a chance to 139 learn about and merge theory with their practices, another aspect that emerged as an important contributor to the feeling that this learning was authentic, allowing them to ground their professional learning in real events. For instance, Kristy described this valuing of the authenticity of this learning. You read stuff in a book, but to actually sit down with someone who says, ‘Okay, I set up these stations, I knew this station wouldn’t work with kids on their own. So, I made sure I had the CEA [Certified Education Assistant] time at that time and she worked at that station and that worked beautifully.’ I mean this is a conversation I’ve had with Maria so it’s not just … on paper. You actually hear what the pitfalls were and the solutions and then, when you go to try the same thing, you’ve already got the background and that, and the tips and the help. We just propel each other forward (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Similarly, Coral explained the difference for her between the PLC experience as a real, or authentic, learning experience and a more traditional form of professional learning. I just find I often don’t take a lot out of a speaker who just sits in front of me and talks, and talks, and talks, and talks…. What I find with speakers is that it’s all about the positive. [They say things like] ‘and then this happens, and this happens, and this happens,’ in a perfect world. Whereas when we discussed what was not working and the problems we had, it just seemed more like what I see in my classroom. Yes, I’m banging my head against the wall and this is not working, and so and so is running around the classroom. And that to me was more real, it was way more real (Coral, 1st individual interview, June 2013). Equally important, Lita described the benefit of being able to engage with her colleagues in 140 conversations about her challenges and that this openness allowed a sense of normalizing the challenges felt by teachers. I think we were a little guarded and a little feeling like everyone else is doing well and I’m not. And I think we found we were able to very quickly see the reality of it - that we are all having challenges and we are all trying to meet so many needs. So, I think over the 8 months we became more relaxed with each other and … not looking for answers outside the group so much. [Not having] someone coming in and saying, ‘this is what you all need to be doing,’ but coming up with those answers within the group. I think was really, really effective (Lita, 1st individual interview, June 2013). Learning with and from others was a way of connecting to actual classroom practice in ways that seemed to support these teachers’ current situations, and it provided the space to generate new ways to address classroom learning challenges. The participants described ways they started to seek out opportunities to observe others’ practice or discuss it, reflect on it, and learn what aspects may increase their own ability to teach reading. For these teachers, it became valuable to break out of their habits of working in their own classrooms and connect with others in similar teaching contexts. For example, Lita explained how she started to notice a shift in teachers in the group bringing more of their own practice to the group for input and advice. So, I do feel that those people [teachers in the PLC] were there… because they wanted to be there and that’s a huge shift. They were willing to bring things and talk and kind of have those conversations back and forth. The whole thing about celebrating with each other was just, it wasn’t like you were coming to listen to somebody or not knowing what you were going to do. You had to have some impetus to bring something to share too. And I think that made you be more involved in it too. And I think that was a difference in 141 it, it was voluntary, and you wanted to be there, and you bought into it (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Participants spoke about the necessity of engaging in their learning in ways that were meaningful to their ongoing practice. The teachers seemed to experience a sense of authenticity when the theories they were learning about were acted out or directly linked to actual classroom practice. In that way, the teachers could see the impacts of different methods or strategies about how beneficial the tweak in practice was for their students. 5.3 Letting go of Unrealistic Expectations Reflecting on the CR4YR initiative, participants spoke about the freedom they felt when they gained reassurance that they did not have to be perfect, act perfect, or try to achieve perfection; that they could show up to the group just as they are, as teachers who have some success, but also have doubts and failures. As the PLC relationships developed and the learning deepened, the participants described a feeling that they could let go of unrealistic expectations for themselves and for their students’ learning. By letting go of the stress of high expectations, many participants described the ability to attempt new practices that might be beneficial or might not, but they felt free to experiment. Clea explained some overwhelming emotions that permeated the group and how participation in CR4YR helped teachers cope. Some of the members of the group were getting overwhelmed with their classes and just thinking, ‘how the hell am I supposed to do anything with this group? I’m just in survival mode. And how can we talk about best practices when we are just trying to get through the day and I need more help and I’m not getting enough.’ And I think it was before job 142 action too, so there was that floating around right? So really stressful (Clea, 1st individual interview, January 2015). The teachers noted in their interviews how the current context of job action was impacting their work as teachers. When we engaged in the focus group conversations, the topic of stress was again surfaced by the teachers, and this time it seemed to be about the benefits of knowing you were in this team of colleagues that allowed you to feel some support for the stresses of the work that you otherwise keep to yourself as a personal problem. As the facilator within this PLC, I did have a leadership role, and so it was important to me to ensure the participants had the space to discuss and reflect on their well-being in ways that promoted further resilience. For example, they talked about learning to let go of expectations as a way to manage stress and increase connections with others. Ann explained how building relationships with her colleagues through this PLC experience helped her to be able to put her students’ learning in perspective, and that she could continue to try out new ways of helping the students through the learning she was doing with her team. I think the whole [thing of] allowing yourself some breathing room, and just not being so stressed that these kids have to be at this level by the time they leave this grade. Changing Results really taught me that. This is where they are and I’m just moving forward, just moving forward. For me, that has relieved a lot of that personal stress because you take it home with you. You sit there and worry through the night - maybe I should try this with them or whatever right? Because you are always trying to think about how to help them. So, I think that that has helped on a personal level. I don’t wake up as much at night, maybe I’m just exhausted (laughing). I think I’m less stressed (Ann, focus group interview, January 2017). 143 Several teachers then engaged with Ann in conversation about this idea of acknowledging expectations of perfection. Their interactions highlighted for me the ways the group came together as a support for each other when they opened up to each other about their doubts and worries. Ann: I feel like [the PLC group] gave me a voice. Like I could feel like I don’t know everything, but I know a little bit and that’s okay. I can still learn but I think [the PLC] gave me a sense of relief. Lita: and recognize your strengths because you see strengths in someone else and you know it bounces off each other a little bit. People appreciate your ideas and that’s good for you to know. Diana: and sometimes they don’t and that’s okay too. Lita: they are still good ideas. They are your ideas. Shanna: I think your well-being is always better when you feel part of a team or feel part of a network of people, rather than feeling isolated just in your own room (Focus group interview, January 2017). The stories from these participants about the importance of having a voice that was heard by colleagues seemed to foreground the importance of connecting with others, not only in a relational learning capacity, but to have a sense of satisfaction with one’s practice and know there are ways to manage stressful situations and re-engage in the teaching profession. 5.4 Acknowledging the Expertise in Colleagues and Themselves The participants acknowledged their colleagues in CR4YR as valuable sources of knowledge and experience as they got to know each other better and learned more about who 144 they each were as teachers. Over time, they learned to engage with each other in dialogue, to observe and reflect with each other to help each other work through various challenges with students in their classrooms. Reading through the data, I noticed that the concept of expertise was described by the participants as having practical knowledge, extensive experience, and an openness to share. It became clear from the interviews and focus groups that many of the participants learned to show their faults and discuss some challenges they were having personally and professionally, sharing authentically about their work, and this act of vulnerability seemed to increase their professional opinions of one another as having or developing expertise. These teachers are master teachers in many, many areas and it was just such growth in hearing their ideas and what worked and what didn’t work. I mean you really felt like you were in the same place as some of them. Oh, that didn’t work for that person or they’re struggling with this, I don’t have to feel so bad I’m struggling with that a bit too. And it was a greater mind to come up with some of these problems or work out the solutions (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). In the same way, Coral commented on her experiences. I think it was that feeling that it wasn’t intimidating and that everybody was in the same boat and that it was so helpful. Like … if you asked me at the beginning of last year, I would not have said that, but I really felt that there was stuff to be shared. That we had things to say and everybody had something that I had maybe not thought of. So, there was lots of knowledge in the room to share (Coral 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Kristy explained that she enjoyed learning from the participants who were not the teachers that were always taking on the role of teacher leaders in the district; that she enjoyed seeing different people held up as leaders for their work in their classrooms. She described how seeing the videos 145 of teachers trying out practices in their classrooms helped her to see other teachers as leaders. The videos were an important part of the CR4YR experience because for many it was the first ways that they took their teaching practices public. As a leader in the PLC, I offered to videotape in the classroom as an opportunity to develop materials that we could all learn from. Videotaping classroom practice was a big turning point in the community development of the CR4YR because teachers, at that point, had been isolated in their classrooms. The videos allowed people to see into other schools and learn from teachers across the district. I observed how courageous the teachers were who volunteered to be videotaped and share their practice with others. My role at this point was to create a safe space for the teachers to be vulnerable, with the understanding of how powerful that was for the other teachers to observe. Lieberman and Mace (2010) describe this as making private practice public where “public teaching facilitates improved teaching and that all teachers can benefit from making their practices public and sharing them with others” (p. 78). A powerful result of bringing the traditionally isolated practice of teaching into a public venue was a new kind of conversation in professional learning for these teachers as they saw everyday practices that are rooted in real interactions with students on the videos. Kristy explained her feelings about the videotaping practice. I loved that some of the teachers that had video clips brought in, like we have certain teachers in the district that are amazing teachers and so, it was cool to see people who haven’t been in the limelight before. And I really liked that because there were amazing things going on. And it wasn’t the same people we’ve seen before, or that you would typically expect the cameras to go into [their classrooms]. I mean, we expect the camera to go into Sasha’s room. And it was just really kind of neat to see other teachers shining (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). 146 The practice of sharing videotapes of real teaching within the PLC allowed the space for the teachers to delve into their practice and learn from what was working well, and also from the missteps or mishaps that often happen in teaching. The teachers were given the space to think deeply about their practice and how it connected to the articles and research we presented in the CR4YR sessions. This was a new practice for the teachers. In the past, the teachers said they read articles or books about teaching reading, but they felt it was disconnected from classroom practice. It seemed the longer participants were engaged in learning with each other in their teams, the more they noticed and appreciated the expertise in others that was reflected through discussions, viewing practice through videos, and visiting each other’s classrooms. The participants seemed to enjoy the merits of learning from the expertise of others during the CR4RY initiative. Learning from others was a strength of the overall experience that was apparent throughout the individual interviews. However, it was in the focus group interviews that happened after the initiative ended that the participants described the development of their own expertise. It was interesting to notice the difference between the interviews conducted during the CR4YR initiative versus the focus group interviews conducted later after the educators had the time to solidify their knowledge and reflect on their practice. For instance, in the focus group conversation Diana recounted how she enjoys recognizing when she is now able to draw on her newfound expertise to be able to identify the specific reasons why her students are struggling. I’m way more excited about teaching, I’ve always been excited about teaching, but now to be excited about reading and to understand the reading process. … It’s exciting to now be able to read with a child and think, oh, I think that the area that they are going to need help in is that they are not reading for meaning, and they are decoding and they are just 147 sounding out. And it’s not just words, I actually get what I’m talking about (Diana, focus group interview, January 2017). In addition, Ann described how she noticed that she had moved in her professional learning toward a more substantial understanding of how to work with her students on their reading. [I was able to progress to] I know that is where they are weak, so I know what I can focus on. Whereas before I knew they were struggling [and would say], ‘okay let’s practice more.’ I wasn’t necessarily sure on what’s the next step [and] how do you get them to do that, right? It’s so interesting (Ann, focus group interview, January 2017). Furthermore, Shanna made clear she definitely felt more confident in teaching reading and “probably a part of that is being comfortable with not having all the answers and being vulnerable and feeling more comfortable and confident talking about things” (Shanna, focus group interview, January 2017). Lita echoed feeling more confident and able to be vulnerable with her colleagues when she stated she was able to, “[think] about things and give [herself] that observation time rather than thinking [she] always had to solve the problem right away. Or [think she didn’t] know what to do about this child’s needs” (Lita, focus group interview, January 2017). The transition from noticing and acknowledging expertise in others to recognizing ones own learning and sense of efficacy as reading teachers was a significant shift in the way the participants spoke about themselves as teachers. Beyond the sense of confidence that was described in the focus group interviews by the participants, it was interesting to see their own development of expertise and how that added to their overall sense of satisfaction with their work and a sense of authenticity in feeling they have expertise in teaching reading. 148 5.5 The Fear of Judgment and the Value of Risk-Taking A common feeling described by most of the participants was a worry that collective learning was an opportunity for others to judge them and their teaching. Reflecting on their experiences of why this was a valuable learning time for them, most participants said they were surprised that they did not feel a sense of judgment from the other members of the PLC. This lack of judgement over time led to them feeling more and more comfortable taking risks in their teaching and sharing these with the group for their feedback and advice. They seemed grateful for this opportunity to let their guard down and to be authentic within their team without the worry of judgment. It kind of [pushed] you a bit to share and when usually I’m resistant to that, not because I don’t want to share what I’m doing but because I’m nervous of being judged, I guess. But in a safe environment it’s a little easier because no one is going to say, “that’s a terrible idea,” or “wow, you’re a really bad teacher.” … It seemed like a really good group. I don’t know if all groups are that way, but this one seemed really, really good (Ann, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). According to Kristy, in her second individual interview she stated how they were able to be more themselves as they let go of fear. There was definitely this evolution and I think the last day was our best day. I think just over time everyone got more comfortable, more open, more relaxed, more willing to share and less fear of being judged. Our last session I just thought was beautiful, like everybody, it was just, like this open community of people sharing thoughts and ideas without fear. And, I thought it was pretty special (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). 149 Many participants described the benefit of the time, space, and encouragement for taking risks in the CR4YR initiative. Most teachers seemed to start off trying out minor tweaks to their practice, such as changes in timetabling, changes in types of books, and changes in how they planned for lessons. Toward the end of the first year and beginning of the second year, some teachers were exploring new methods of teaching reading that were moving further along the continuum of risk-taking. Exploration into co-teaching with colleagues, changing the structure of reading instruction to include more individualized support for students, and video-taping their practice for further discussion with colleagues were some of the ways teachers were taking risks in their practice. For example, Lita shared her experiences of coming to learn that she could open up to her team and share with them what it meant to her to take risks. It’s been a group that I’ve felt comfortable with that I could share with. Sometimes that’s not always the case when you don’t know people really well, so that’s been a real plus for me personally. Not being one [to feel comfortable] being in a group of strangers and feeling like I just want to share my heart or share all the stuff I’m doing. I tend to sit back and listen. Whereas, you know these people better and you have that relationship over two years and that is a much more comfortable place to just really say what needs to be said and just kind of put out some of the things you are struggling with in an environment that is not judgemental. I think that’s really important, we don’t always have that in our professional lives (Lita, focus group interview, January 2017). As another example, Tania described the importance of the group for supporting her growth and how that leads to a richer teaching experience, even when the experience does not go as planned. Because often, as you know, with change if someone tries something new and fails they won’t do it again. Whereas if they try something new and fail and somebody else in the 150 group tried something and they failed in their eyes, then it’s commiseration, laughter and brainstorming. Whereas if you are all on your own, it’s like, I’m not doing that again. So, in a sense it narrows, narrows and narrows the options and the possibilities. And then that leads a person to repeat themselves and that leads to boredom (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). Tania’s words seem to suggest it is important to be in relationship with others to broaden perspectives on learning and trying new things in practice. Tania described the difference between her interpretation of collaborative inquiry and more individual learning that is perhaps structured or perceived to be judged by success or failure, rather than a long-term learning process that does not necessarily ever finish and has a feeling of openness to risks and failure in the service of learning to be a better teacher. The intent of collaborative inquiry is to acquire a mindset of lifelong learning by continually inquiring into one’s practice. Because this learning was cyclical, success and failure were not the foci, but rather an accepted part of learning. Instead the participants focused on challenges and the continuation of learning. Some participants spoke about the notion that it was comforting to know they could tweak their practice in small ways, even if it did not have the intended outcome. As an example of how these teachers experienced what it meant to try out new practices, to experiment in their teaching, Kristy reflected in a focus group interview, “it was a real shift and, to be honest, a little bumpy on the way” (January 2017) when she described learning and changing practice in a PLC that has not necessarily been part of the culture of teachers in the past. In the focus group, Kristy was describing the learning process and how it is difficult at times to change one’s practice or learn that one’s practice could be improved. She explained, it was bumpy when she was trying new things in her classroom, as she felt she was going through 151 so much trial and error. What pulled her through the bumpy time was her engagement with her learning, support from other colleagues, and the continuity of the PLC. Lita explained further as she reflected on her teaching career. I look back at teaching over the years that I taught, and it used to, to me, be a really isolated profession. You closed your door and you taught, and you really didn’t share a lot with others about your difficulties or whatnot because you had to look good to the parents. … So, to be able to get past that and understand that being on a team and having that question with someone else and the vulnerability is just so opening (Lita, focus group interview, January 2017). Taking risks in one’s practice can lead to further growth, but the participants explained they often needed to have a sense of permission, mostly from self, but also in relation to the perception of judgment that may come with working in groups, to be able to go through the trial and error cycle of learning. I noted there seemed to be a sense of freedom to belong to a community that not only allowed ,but encouraged, the teachers to try out different practices in the classroom, without feeling the pressure to perform perfectly. Tania described the importance of developing a sense of confidence to change through the relationships that developed over time. What I noticed was the first year in the first sessions, and I’m sure you noticed this, people were fairly tentative about what they shared. They were careful, and they were feeling the waters. And then as it went on and other people were more honest, [and] more and more people began to notice that this was a really safe place. And that’s when I think things really blossomed (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). 152 Coming to see the necessity of vulnerability as an important portal to richer learning with others was highlighted in Lita’s comments. I think it’s harder for some to get past [judgment] than others, to let yourself be a little bit vulnerable. But you know, that is where the strength came from to learn and to give that to others in the group too (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). It seemed that the participants developed a confidence for taking risks and changing their practices over time with their learning teams. During the individual interviews that took place when the CR4YR initiative was happening, the participants seemed to be more focused on the fear of judgment by their colleagues. In the focus group interviews the participants reflected on the emergence of vulnerability and risk-taking as important components of building relationships and developing a culture of relational learning. Clea explained what she learned about risk-taking over the course of this initiative. We can all wait until we are experts before we try something and get more books, but really you just have to jump in and do it because that is where the learning is. That is where inquiry is a good thing or thinking small first. [Starting small] gives yourself permission to jump in. You are not going to screw these kids up too bad, there are only a couple of them. And you can refine it after that, but you kind of have to do that and do all the learning and then you grow. It is when you hold back too much and don’t jump in [that you will not grow as a professional] (Clea, focus group interview, January 2017). At that point in the conversation, Coral jumped in and mentioned, “and it was just towards the end that we seemed to open up, just sort of flower almost, it was kind of amazing” (Coral, focus group interview, January 2017). The participants were reflecting on the value of risk-taking in their practice and that it was a part of the learning journey that impacted their growth over time 153 as they built their small community of trust, support, and encouragement for trying out new practices to improve their teaching and openly sharing about how these practices worked or not. For many of the teachers, this PLC experience was a new way of learning in relation to others. The act of being authentic with other participants, whether that was learning with and from others or allowing meaningful experiences to develop as they opened up and were honest with each other about their practices, seemed to create further opportunities to develop and deepen relationships that led to a more meaningful learning experience. From their descriptions, I noticed that within a space of authenticity they could come to see themselves in new ways, and that as they recognized this expertise, they could see themselves as important to the construction of their own ongoing learning and development of their own expertise. 5.6 Theme Two: Building a Relational Culture of Learners Teachers are used to interacting with each other in the hallways, in the staff room, and during staff meetings. However, participating in a PLC was a new experience for most of the participants who were used to the more traditional model of sitting and listening to speakers talk to them about teaching and learning. As I read through their interviews, I noted how they appreciated the difference with this opportunity to build connections with colleagues, to learn from and with each other. Through conversations, observing each other, learning to team teach and problem solve with each other they developed relationships that provided space for deeper learning than might happen if they were just sitting and listening to a guest speaker. Many of the participants reflected that they had felt uncomfortable during the first couple of sessions when they realized they would be responsible for co-constructing knowledge with the others, and they would have to inquire into some aspect of their practice they were curious about tweaking in 154 some way. However, they also shared that they came to appreciate and rely on these learning relationships and the community they were building together through this PLC. 5.7 Building a Safe Space of Relational Learning Some participants described that there was a period where teachers participated but did not really understand what was being asked of them in the CR4YR initiative, and were not sure about the intention of the initiative or the overall purpose of a PLC. After about the third or fourth session together, people started to feel a sense of safety with each other, to open up an start to learn what it means to collaborate. Well, at first, I didn’t have great hopes. If you asked me to participate and I kind of understood it, I probably would have said no. But about the third session I really started to see a change and, and it wasn’t just, ‘oh let’s complain about our jobs.’ It was, ‘how can we help each other, how can we share and support each other?’ And so, from the third meeting on, I was gung-ho… There was like a period where people had to feel comfortable with each other and everybody just sort of sat there and we didn’t really know why we were there. And then after that, it just opened up and, and it really, I just felt that I got great ideas that I was able to share, and it was very collaborative (Coral, 1st individual interview, June 2013). Once the teachers became more comfortable with this kind of professional learning along with the intended structure of our sessions together, they slowly eased into a new way of learning with and from others. Tania demonstrated how important it was to have others around when challenging oneself to change practice in some way. It’s when you try something new, if you didn’t have other people around you who are 155 also struggling with the stress of that and the success or failure of it. You don’t even have anyone to share your successes with – that’s hard. But to not have anything to share your failures with? That’s devastating (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). Diana mentioned her thoughts about future interactions with her PLC school team. I think that with Clea, I will always be bouncing things off of her. I think that relationship is there, and I think that relationship will expand to other people. By finding myself within the school, which is a safe school, [I have the opportunity] to talk through things… and I think it’s just learning to dialogue with people safely. And you start learning who the safe people to do that with are (Diana, 1st individual interview, January 2015). Diana later reflected during a focus group interview her throughts after the CR4YR initiative finished. There is a sense of security in feeling like we are all there together. We are all learning and growing together. It’s been just, it’s been life-changing, it really has. To be invited into this community of learning, safe learning (Diana, focus group interview, January 2017). Another essential point about deepening relationships that may have led to a sense of safety, personally and professionally, was made by Diana. I think you are networking with people all over the district by doing this PD and I think you are building relationships in a way. … There have been a few people that I have seen around town who say, ‘oh Diana!’ And we have been able to talk about things, so I think it just gives teachers a chance to … interact with one another. And I think that’s huge and important and it allows us to, even if we are not in the little group together, we do 156 become on the same team. So, I think we become more human to one another by doing that, because we are talking about who we are and things that are happening in our lives that we don’t do necessarily. And I think we as teachers need to see one another as people. And with lives. And then we can talk about the other things as well. So yeah, to me, that was important (Diana, 1st individual interview, January 2015). Some of the participants spoke about the informal gatherings we had as some of the most important for community building. Specifically, a potluck dinner at Sharon’s (one of the Early Reading Advocates) was mentioned multiple times as a very positive event for the teachers involved with CR4YR. The potluck dinner was planned as a last-minute event because the teachers voiced that they felt they needed more contact with the group outside of working hours, to further develop relationships and keep the momentum going. This conversation within a focus group highlights the importance of these events. Shanna: we had a really, really tight group that we bounced things off, we did projects together, we did all sorts of things together. Lerae: and getting together for drinks afterwards, that’s my favourite, at Molly’s house. It’s nice to have someone who has a nice lake view from their house. Shanna: I think it makes a better, a happier environment. Like I don’t know if that was coincidence that we were very social outside of school during that time too … because of that whole collaborative part (focus group interview, January 2017). A few of the participants mentioned the need for familiarity within the group to create a safe place for learning and appreciated the fact that there were multiple sessions to engage in learning together over time. The CR4YR initiative included the provincial facilitator, who was a literacy expert in the province, to mentor the Early Reading Advocates (ERAs) within each 157 school district by co-facilitating four out of the seven sessions each year of the initiative. This role was helpful to set up the structure of the sessions and offer professional knowledge to the PLC in the area of emergent reading pedagogy. The person in this role did provide the PLC with the necessary knowledge-base by sharing her vast experience and knowledge of emergent reading behaviours. She also presented a structure for the sessions involving specific time to learn through discussion, reflect on practice and experience, and collaboratively plan for future actions. However, the provincial facilitator was also viewed by some participants as an outsider, which may have inhibited some of the participants from sharing their challenges and honestly reflecting on their experiences. Essentially, some participants described the lack of safe learning environment when the provincial facilitator was leading the PLC sessions. An example from Coral illustrates the feeling many of the participants had about the outside facilitator versus the district facilitators who were known to the group. I found it awkward when [the provincial facilitator] was in charge and I much preferred it when you and Sharon [facilitated]. I don’t know if that was a familiarity, but there is a presence that you guys had that to me made it more enjoyable. And you kind of nailed what everybody was thinking, whereas I found it was just a little bit too much reading from script when Isabella did it…I just found it more of a comfortability with the two of you (Coral, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). The participants noted a level of stress that came from having those outside the district seeing their learning and missteps as they figured out how to work with the new strategies to help their case study students. They appreciated the level of safety and sense of non-judgment from their 158 learning teams and the district facilitators with whom they had connections and a sense of safety and trust. I think it was important to have people there that everybody felt comfortable with, that everybody knew. I think it can be difficult if someone is coming in who you don’t, who you are not familiar with, just for everyone to be able to be open and so it did change definitely (Shanna, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). And Molly explained in her thoughts about her experiences within CR4YR. I think people allowed themselves to be more vulnerable and share out, they weren’t so reserved about sharing out things. There wasn’t that feeling of I’m going to be judged because I’m not doing this. It’s sort of like going, okay I think I’m doing this wrong or I’m missing something. And this is really nice and that’s sort of what I already touched on, just through that support for everybody and … I don’t think people were as worried. One thing I found really interesting was when Isabella was there people were more guarded and maybe because she’s not from [name of city], I think people were less open and there was less conversation (Molly, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Further, one participant mentioned her level of discomfort was related to a perceived expectation that the provincial facilitator had about the improvement of her student’s reading ability. [The PLC] was really kind of stressful for me because when Isabella came in [and said], ‘just tell us what your child has flourished with.’ And that was really hard because as a teacher you like to think you are making a difference in each child’s life and that particular student seems to be kind of stuck. And even after going to the early intervention, she was still stuck (Lerae, 1st individual interview, June 2013). 159 A few years later in a focus group interview, Lerae described some of her experiences and the time it took for a safe learning climate to emerge. I think for myself, it’s a pretty vulnerable thing being in an inquiry group. Our second year of being in the group we were like ahhhh. The first year we were being all polite because you don’t want to be the know-it-all or admit how little you know, like I realize I don’t know very much here. And then when you try something new you are bound to not be great at it. But you know, as you say, just do a little bit and then you have to take that first step right? (Lerae, focus group interview, January 2017). Lerae’s change of perspective about her learning and experiences from the first year of participating and then a few years later reflecting back upon her learning progression is noted through her interviews. Her reflection suggests she was feeling stress that first year because of the lack of progression of her case study student’s reading ability. Whereas, in her focus group interview she explained the importance of building relationships with the learning group so that she could be comfortable enough with others to share where she was feeling stuck with students or what was really happening in her classroom so that she could get feedback and help to move forward. 5.8 Continuity: Engaging in Meaningful Experiences Over Time The participants spoke about the importance of developing relationships that invited the other participants to connect on a deeper level. Developing relationships became apparent when participants discussed the valuable experience of participating in a collaborative inquiry over two years. Hostetler (2011) described the notion of continuity as engaging in a meaningful experience that is connected to past and future experiences. In this study, continuity allowed the 160 participants to perceive their PLC experiences as a continuation of learning and growing, rather than a single episode. The participants described the benefits of continuous professional learning in a collaborative inquiry framework as not only a commitment to their own learning journey, but a commitment to each other and their learning. Even with the transient nature of teacher turnover in schools, since this was a district PLC, the participants could count on the continuation of the community knowing that teachers would continue in the CR4YR even if they were moved to different schools. For most teachers, their professional life starts in September and ends in June, which means they always seem to begin anew every year and get used to the start and stop mentality of the life of a teacher. This initiative seemed to defy that cycle by giving teachers a sense of continuation in their learning. In her individual interview, Shanna explained the importance for her of getting to know each other over time. It was just nice to develop that relationship with the other teachers and it was interesting because it didn’t happen right away. Everybody is kind of guarded and nervous but once we kind of got to know each other, it was really nice … We always seemed to start off really positive, well it was always positive I think, except for maybe at the very beginning when we were all just feeling a bit overwhelmed in September. But then it became just a really nice time to get to know other teachers. I wasn’t afraid to say, ‘well this isn’t really working, do you have any ideas?’ And the other teachers did the same thing and they had ideas and it was wonderful (Shanna, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Tania talked about the importance of this sense of continuity in how she experienced the meaningfulness of this professional learning initiative. My main interest is kind of how people learn to be open and honest with themselves and with other people. And the thing that I noticed the first year was after a couple of initial 161 sessions where people were more tentative, how people became, they seemed to feel safer and safer about being real. And I thought that was such a valuable process I wanted to be a part of it again (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). The connections that evolved over time may have been related to deepening relationships, increased respect for others, and a certain level of comfort with the other teachers. Although the participants initially committed to engaging in the CR4YR collaborative inquiry to further develop their knowledge of teaching early reading, what developed, according to the participants, was much more than they originally anticipated. The participants described how they valued when others took the time to discuss what was not going well in their classrooms, not in a complaining manner, but in seeking collaborative problem solving and sharing responsibility with others. When the participants started to seek out opportunities to connect with each other outside of the CR4YR sessions, there was a greater sense of relationship building. Diana explained how deep the relationships and learning were for her. I am still excited every time I see Clea and Sadie. They were my group. And yeah, I haven’t seen Sadie probably at all this year really, but if I was to see her we would be right back there with a big hug. And it’s funny that these conversations that you have about these kids, there is a connection and there is a bond that because you try to dive deep with these kids and [then you can ask] ‘how’s my girl doing or how’s my boy doing?’ We still talk about the kids that were our case study kids (Diana, focus group interview, January 2017). The teachers’ stories suggested that there was a sense that time did not have to be spent getting to know each other and developing a safe learning environment when participants took part in the initiative for the second year. They were ready to get started right from where they left off the 162 previous year, making the interaction more purposeful and beneficial to the members of the PLC, but also many participants noted how their students were benefiting from the continued collaboration among the teachers as they increased teacher knowledge about reading instruction, increased energy and enthusiasm due to learning with others, time to reflect meant more mindful teaching, and risk-taking in the form of teacher instruction often lead to innovative teaching techniques. For example, Kristy described her experience after her second year in the PLC. This year you just know people professionally a little bit better and you know each other personally a little bit better. I trust everybody, and I know that everyone is there to help each other, and I know they are all such amazing teachers and I believe in them. I just, like I said before, I just felt like we came in in September and it was just, we were just, there was just a feeling that first meeting, it was like, thank goodness we are all here together and let’s get going, we have things to do here. We were just there for each other (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). At first, teachers were more guarded with their interactions and often discussed what was going well in their classroom. Often this took the form of sharing information, sharing student exemplars, and sharing ideas with each other. This form of sharing does not involve much vulnerability or risk-taking with others, it also does not necessarily involve a sense of interconnectedness which is often apparent in relational learning. However, the teachers shared how building relationships improved and grew their learning as they started asking questions, showing compassion for each other, and interacting more as critical friends, than as mere acquaintances. The participants reflected on the importance of knowing they had this sense of continuity built into their professional learning and knowing that they could offer input throughout to 163 ensure the learning was meeting their needs. In the PLC they discussed what they were interested in learning about together, how they wanted to utilize the time, and how they could organize their inquiry, so it would meet their needs as a team. In her second individual interview Kristy shared her feelings about the importance of being able to count on this continuity. To me the greatest benefit is the ability to have this long term with these other teachers that, like I said, when we came in in September we didn’t have to spend time with, ‘what’s your name, what school are you at?’ You know? We all just sat down and started pouring our hearts out because we were just ready to lay it on the line, right? So, you’re not, I hate to say wasting, but you’re not wasting all this time of trying to build a connection and at what point do I be brave and say, ‘this isn’t working for me or who has an idea?’ Because that’s really putting yourself out there to admit to colleagues, ‘I’m struggling here’ or ‘I know everybody is doing this, but I don’t get it.’ (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Clea mentioned that she felt two years was enough to change her practice and a third year would probably not be as beneficial. I would love a third year, but I would not necessarily need that third year. After two years of this I think, and this is the change in my practice, I think I would be able to use this same process with a teacher in my school on a more informal basis. And that’s something as an LR [learning resource teacher] I always want to do is collaborate with classroom teachers. You are always having to negotiate support and what are we going to do with these children and push in and push out and all the rest. I think in the future it will [revolve] more around, ‘tell me about this kid’ and whether it’s my student, my case load student or somebody else in their classroom that they’re worried about that isn’t on 164 anybody’s case load. Let’s look at that kid and let’s figure out an inquiry question about that child and let’s work together as a team here in this school. So, I think I can move that into regular practice now (Clea, 2nd individual interview, January 2015). In the focus group interviews, most other teachers expressed a regret that the CR4YR initiative did not continue, as they would have liked to continue their participation. However, some participants did agree with Clea that they had moved aspects of the collaborative inquiry (such as, sharing articles, discussing practice, collectively problem-solving and co-teaching) into their daily collegial practice with colleagues at their schools, and maintained learning relationships with their teams. During participants’ second individual interviews many compared the learning and relationship building that happened in the first year of taking part in the initiative versus the second year. Most participants described an appreciation for the second year as a time to go deeper with their understanding of teaching early reading providing a sense of continuity in their learning. Given that the participants engaged over a long period of time, it is not surprising that all of the participants in the focus group interviews described ways they continue to collaborate with others in the CR4YR initiative and other colleagues in their schools (informally or formally). Some of the ways the participants continued to work and learn collaboratively with their colleagues were through professional book clubs, online collaborative learning discussions, co-teaching opportunities. The on-going collaboration with colleagues underpins the concept of continuity and reflects the commitment to each other as learners. 165 5.9 Dealing with Negative Experiences Some participants spoke about some negative experiences that happened at certain times throughout the CR4YR initiative and how it influenced their experiences of learning in the PLC. In her second individual interview Clea described the negative frame of mind that was developing among certain members of the PLC when the teachers were facing job-action and how her team seemed to make a conscious effort to stay focused on their learning. It’s interesting, our team last year was not heading down a negative path, we sort of entered in a pretty strong positive mind frame. Watching other people struggle in some ways kind of made us stronger, or firmer in our belief that no, no, we are just not going to go down that route. We are just going to stay focused on what we can do. I think it can go either way, you can see someone else really struggling and getting frustrated and you can join them, or it can absolutely just make you more determined than ever. Yes, I can be compassionate, I can try to help and I can be sympathetic I can understand, because I’ve been there too. But I’m not going there this time because right now I’m really focused on refining my practice and doing the best I can (Clea, 1st individual interview, January 2015). Reflecting on some of the challenges that they experienced throughout their time together Tania described her thoughts about her colleagues and what it meant to participate in CR4YR before and after the strike. On the strike line, you know, there was a lot of disappointment, a lot of sadness, a lot of anger, a lot of overwhelming [feelings] and a sense of hopelessness. And I wondered if in the second year, if I was able to be [a]part of this, if I would see the reparative process happen with the interactions or not. It might have gone too far in the other direction [and 166 the teachers] would just be cynical and burnt out and done, because I saw a lot of that (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). And Lerae felt that without the guidance of a facilitator the group would have taken a more negative tone in the PLC learning environment. If Sharon didn’t provide a framework for our conversations, I’m pretty sure the whole time it would have been a bitch session about what’s happening in our schools or what is not happening in our schools or how our students are driving each other crazy. Because that’s what teachers love to do when they get together is to talk about what’s not going well right? So, having Sharon there, we would probably bitch for about 10 minutes. But then she would go, okay, today’s theme is… and then it would be a very productive meeting. But because she did that, she kept us honest (Lerae, 1st individual interview, June 2013). Coral described how she thought that meeting the same teachers and experiencing emotional connections enabled them to go even deeper into their learning. There were some really emotional days but that’s what I think broke the ice for that moving forward and really becoming comfortable with everyone. So, because of that repetition and constantly meeting the same group of people I think it broke down a lot of barriers and a lot more was said than if I went for one professional development [day] and it was a totally different group every time. I don’t think we would have ever got to the same spot we were at doing it this way, not even remotely (Coral, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). At one of the meetings the emotions were running quite high and there were many tears when we were discussing classroom practice and school climate at that time. During that time, 167 there was news of an upcoming teacher union strike and the feelings described by the participants were charged with emotions such as anxiety of the near future, distrust of administration, and anger of lack of support in their schools. Teachers were describing students in their classes that needed more support than they felt they could provide with the current level of assistance. Due to the tense political climate, teachers were advised by the union to limit conversation with administrators and not do extra work outside teaching contact hours. This situation created a stressful work environment for teachers and administrators. When teachers feel anxiety, frustration, and anger, it can be educationally damaging and can lead teachers to work in isolation and lose professional motivation (Hargreaves, 2001). The teachers in this study had been in a group together the previous year, and so they had developed relationships that allowed for them to discuss things truthfully. As emotions continued to intensify through the discussion Clea brought everyone’s attention to the fact that she was making notes about the conversation. She explained she did not mean any disrespect and only took notes to show everyone what was happening with our conversation. Clea wanted to ensure everyone understood that she empathized with their situations and felt similar stress in her own teaching situation, but she pointed out there may be a more beneficial way to continue the conversation. She described the negative cycle of stressful comments that were perpetuating further negative comments as the conversation continued that day. She recommended that many of the challenges the teachers were facing were similar to each other, but there were things the teachers had control over and things they did not. She suggested the teachers change the course of the conversation and focus on the things that they did have control over in our teaching. The teachers responded positively to Clea’s suggestion and many teachers voiced that they were focused on the stressful work environment, not their students or their day-to-day teaching. From my 168 observation, this helped change the course of the conversation back to student learning and what we could do to help the students who were struggling with reading during that CR4YR session. Over time, it seemed that many of the other teachers sought out time to spend with Clea when they were feeling stressed and needed support. Clea proved to be a powerful teacher leader within the PLC that focused on positive ways to work collaboratively with others and offer support in a way that was beneficial to the others. During a focus group interview, the participants reflected back on that emotional meeting with a sense of fondness. The conversation began: Ann: Well, I just remember that session where we just cried. Lita: Oh, you remember that crying? That’s so true. Shanna: it was like a therapy session. Ann: and more experienced people than me, right? Lita: we really needed that. Ann: well it just encouraged me though that [to think] okay it’s not just me feeling overwhelmed here. Lita: that’s true, there is a feeling of camaraderie. Ann: so, then you feel you can be more honest and say, yeah, I’m finding it hard too. Right? (focus group interview, January 2017). Even though it was a difficult time for the participants, the excerpt from the focus group interview showed that it was necessary for the teachers to connect in that way and offer each other a sense of compassion and resilience in order to help manage stress and find camaraderie in their colleagues. Overall, the participants shared that they noticed a change in the culture of the PLC in the 169 second year of involvement and were interacting with each other in ways that intensified their relational bonds. The participants seemed to be engaged in building a culture within and among their teams, and that the relational aspects of their interactions over the two years were a strong influence in the bonds they were feeling. Lortie (1975) explained that his research uncovered the inherent lack of a shared culture in the teaching profession (lack of shared language, shared goals and co-learning opportunities); however, he recommended the way to build culture in the profession was to engage in learning with others through community-building. Through the CR4YR initiative, these teachers enjoyed the time and space for building a community together, and that this sense of community has become a lasting part of their learning experiences from this PLC. 5.10 Theme Three: The Learning Process and Change of Practice Many participants spoke about the need and desire to reinvigorate their teaching practice and gather new knowledge about pedagogy and current research in the field of emergent reading in order to potentially innovate in their practice. The CR4YR opportunity added a sense of momentum in their work for many teachers in this study. The importance of creating conditions for learning relationships to build over time to contribute to changes in practice is reflected in the stories presented in this next theme and resonates with the research question about how a relational lens may provide new insights for fostering and supporting relevant, valuable, and meaningful collective professional learning for teachers. Through their stories about their experiences, I noted that they valued collective knowledge building, experienced changes in their practice, appreciated teacher teams, and enjoyed school collaboration as important aspects of how they experienced meaningful learning through the relationships they were growing together. 170 5.11 Collective Knowledge Building to Change Practice Participants liked the flexible structure of collaborative inquiry, which was determined in consultation with the group. Within the sessions, each team was accountable for sharing their progress in their inquiry, discussing where to go next within their team, and reading and discussing professional resources about reading instruction. However, within that structure, each team conducted their inquiry slightly differently. The flexibility and ownership of their learning journey added to the enthusiasm of the teachers and the momentum to continue to inquire into what they were personally interested in learning. Lerae mentioned in her first individual interview her experience with her school team. Coral, and me and Molly we get chit-chatting and we get pretty excited and … we were really good at bouncing ideas off each other and we would, pretty much, immediately we would try them in our classrooms. So, it was really positive (Lerae, 1st individual interview, June 2013). In her second individual interview, Lita described her experience participating with CR4YR. [The CR4YR was] really exciting for me and for the kids, they really ate it up. … We were able to go into some areas that I haven’t gone into before with the kids and I was just really impressed with how it worked. Or if something didn’t work you could bounce it off the other person as well, but I found everything that we tried it, it helped somebody within the group or within the classroom (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Along a similar thread, Ann mentioned in her second individual interview how she continues to interact within the PLC. I would have to say that when we meet together as a group and share ideas it just helps me to tie into what I’m doing in my classroom and it gives me ways to improve the things 171 that I’m already doing. Then also, when I’m maybe having a particular issue, just getting ideas of how to solve that and other people kind of sharing what they are doing or even just saying ‘have you tried this?’ It’s super helpful and it kind of influences all aspects of the teaching, not only the curriculum but problem solving. Because kids are not all at the same level and trying to figure out what to do with them and how to get them to the next level (Ann, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Much of the discussions in the individual interviews highlighted sharing information and sharing ideas. In the focus group interviews, the conversations seemed to reflect a shift in how these teachers talked about their collaborative practices that evolved over time. They seemed to talk about their collaboration as more than just sharing ideas to learning how to work together and building a common language together about what they are learning together. One of the focus group interview conversations highlighted this shift. Ann: I will be reading with students and she [Shanna] will come in to pull a student to read with to give me advice on some more things that I can do or something. We just did that a few weeks ago and it was super helpful. Shanna: and it was just easy for me to make notes and I knew you would understand. Ann: it was helpful, and I was like, thanks. And just for some of those kids that were in the groups that I was reading with and just kind of, what do I need to do here? Shanna: well it’s nice to have another person, normally we are just going on our own and going oh, what can I do? (focus group interview, January 2017). Over time, it seemed that many of the interactions with these teachers moved beyond surface-level sharing of ideas, to working together in ways that involved changing practice and on-going collaboration with colleagues. 172 When the participants reflected on their time in the PLC they shared some of the ways they merged theory and practice as they carried on throughout the CR4YR initiative. For example, Lerae, Molly, and Coral shared how they had learned about the theory of reading and writing reciprocity and developed shared reading and writing time to build the process of writing alongside the process of reading through many activities. Sadie described changing her literacy centers into literacy stations that were purposeful and focused on components of reading and writing that complimented the learning of each other. Lynn described how theories of individualized learning helped her to see how she could further developed her literacy stations. Similarly, Ann shared that reading pedagogy helped her to develop her teaching to give students’ more choice throughout the day and this allows more individualized support for her students who are struggling with reading. Most participants reflected that they had noticed some kind of change of teaching practice or belief. [It was] interesting for me to think about in my own practice. It’s just that process of learning and thinking, and spiraling and thinking, and then asking another question. So, I’m doing that all the time. I’m thinking like that constantly … I think I’m comfortable with that now... I hope that this process just continues through my whole teaching (Diana, focus group interview, January 2017). Similarly, Coral made clear in another focus group interview that she and her colleagues have “completely changed the way that [they] look at the kids, the way [they] are teaching those kids … I think we can piece it and refine it so much better than we could before” (Coral, focus group interview, January 2017). In addition, Kristy continued the conversation in the same interview. 173 Overall my practice has completely changed. Actually, what is interesting for me this year is, I went back into the classroom and I was teaching reading in a classroom setting with older kids, grade 3. And so [I] absolutely taught in a [different] way, I mean I’ve been teaching for over 20 years and my classroom teaching was completely different this year (Kristy, focus group interview, January 2017). Interestingly, Kristy noted in our focus group conversation when we were talking about changes in practices and beliefs that she has been making it a priority to dialogue with her teaching partner and collectively problem solve around students’ learning needs and how they can best meet the needs of struggling readers. She explained that the conversation in our focus group was helping her to make sense of what she learned through the CR4YR experience. I’m just making a connection here [in the focus group conversation]. Isn’t that just going right back to [what we did in] Changing Results [for Young Readers]? …. I’m just having this little epiphany right now. Having another person to talk to and really discuss why it is not working, we’ve tried this, we’ve tried this, we’ve tried this, and it’s not coming together for him. [That is what we did with our case study students in CR4YR]. All throughout this conversation I’m making connections (Kristy, focus group interview, January 2017). Similarly, Clea described to her colleagues in her focus group how participating in CR4YR changed how she worked with classroom teachers in her role as a resource teacher. She described a scenario of when she is talking with classroom teachers. [When other teachers say] ‘I’m too overwhelmed I can’t do anything’ and I can say, ‘okay let’s do it just as an inquiry. One child, think about that one child.’ And sometimes it’s a special ed kiddo and sometimes it’s just a regular, neuro-typical child. And it just 174 sort of brings everybody down when you think, ‘I can do this if I just think about one kid.’ And then from that one child when you look at your teaching practices and observe them. Most of the time, [you] find what works for that one child can work for multiple kids in the classroom. So that’s been really helpful since we did the inquiry (Clea, focus group interview, January 2017). The participants described how they have changed their practice or their thinking about pedagogy in some way, often giving credit to the ongoing learning through the CR4YR initiative. The continual use of inquiry was noted by some participants as being a way to consider how to support emergent readers and often involving others in the process to make it more collaborative. 5.12 Diversity in Teacher Teams Provided Co-Learning Environments The time was provided for teachers to learn collectively and reflect on their individual learning and how to improve their teaching, but over time it also morphed into a space where teachers were recognizing each other’s strengths. There was a sense of appreciation and acknowledgement of the diversity of strengths and abilities that the members of the PLC were bringing into the learning environment for everyone to benefit. As participants became more comfortable sharing their diverse opinions and their expertise with the other members, the nature of the interactions became more focused on learning from the other members about classroom instruction, professional conduct, and theory-based practice. I just think that every time we meet you get to know each other a little bit better and you get to trust each other a little bit better. I know that with each person I’m going to get a different perspective. I know Jan and Teryl are completely polar opposites in the way in which they teach. And I love listening to both of them because they both have, everyone is bringing something to the table and then you can sift through it and decide what will 175 work for you (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). Tania explained that one member of her team benefited greatly from the collective expertise of the whole PLC. She has the focus from Changing Results for Young Readers, she’s got colleagues that are assisting her, and she has the awareness each time we meet that there is going to be more support, more information, more knowledge, more ideas. Not like you are just sitting on this desert island by yourself [thinking], ‘oh my god, I’ve got all these grades, how am I going to do this?’ So, I just see in that school there was a big difference (Tania, 1st individual interview, January 2015). The framework of the CR4YR initiative was designed so that there was a larger district-wide PLC that brought interested teachers together to collaboratively inquire into areas of practice in emergent reading instruction. As well, a significant strength of the initiative was the development of the school teams (generally made up of two classroom teachers and a non-enrolling teacher) in order to provide that continuity of learning on a daily basis back at the school environment. The team allowed for learning to be more rooted in practice and more contact with the other members between the formal PLC meetings. A few participants described their appreciation for the team when considering the depth of their learning and the constant contact with others in the school environment to engage with more informal learning opportunities. Lerae described the collaborative learning environment constructed at her school with her team. So, it was, again, about the relationships that developed last year. We were able to carry on. Carry on exchanging ideas and we were to talk about the reading rave and the pluses and negatives about that we were kind of going, hmmm. We were perhaps ready to talk 176 about the negatives of the reading rave. Without having to reflect on, ‘what did you do wrong?’ (Lerae, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). The Reading Rave mentioned was a time allotted to bring all the grade one students, all the grade one teachers, and all non-enrolling teachers available together every day for a specific time period and support students in different ways with the increased number of teachers in the room. Some students received small group support, some students work independently, and some students had one-on-one support. In another individual interview, Lita explained a specific example from her practice that was improved through the development of the team in her school. I think that was a real benefit for us within the group … and often what came out of that time was me saying, ‘well why don’t I support you in this way, or them being able to see you’re doing this, I will try to do that within the classroom.’ For example, well we talked about the read-to-self books in the classroom and … one of our questions was how we could increase student engagement. We talked specifically one week about that read-to-self bag, and [I was] able to say, ‘why don’t I give them some of the books, you know, that I’ve read with them, why don’t I come in?’ In another incidence, ‘why don’t I come in during your read-to-self and with your case study student and just spend some one-on-one time with them?’ So, if was really helpful to be able to collaborate with those teachers (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). The conversations that arose during individual interviews often highlighted how the teacher teams were working together, along with the power of those daily conversations at the school. Over the course of the initiative it seemed that the on-going learning developed through the combination of the district-wide PLC sessions together and the continuous discussions, co-teaching, and collaborating that was happening at the schools in between the PLC sessions 177 helped to deepen and broaden these teachers’ learning relationships. 5.13 Impact of PLC Collaboration on Schools At times the participants spoke about how the momentum of their learning spilled over into the school environment and affected educators that were not a part of the CR4YR initiative. Examples included a focused conversation about pedagogy, or an invitation to collaborate, or a suggestion on how to change some aspect of instruction at the school-wide level. Kristy described a conversation that happened at a staff meeting at her school when she introduced a model of collaborative teaching that would better meet the needs of students who were struggling with reading. We were very nervous because there is a long tradition [in our school] of different models and for this staff it was a change and we weren’t sure how it would be received. And so, what was the fascinating part was all of those teachers who had been part of Changing Results, they just like ‘YES!’ in the staff meeting. They were like, ‘finally!’ And other staff who had not been part of it, you could just see the panic on their face and [they were] very nervous. And some of them I could just see [their] expressions but they didn’t want to say anything and some actually came a couple of days later and said that they weren’t really feeling comfortable with the whole change shift in model and shift in thinking. So, it was really interesting that the people that we had this connection with and we had all these shared conversations and shared experiences and shared readings and professional development, and they were all just like, like literally ‘Yes! Finally!’ and ‘this is what we so desperately needed.’ So yes, I found it was just an interesting observation how the different people on staff reacted and I think it really came down to 178 all of those things that we had been doing together over the last two years (Kristy, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). In Lita’s second individual interview she provided another example of how participating in the CR4YR seemed to build their capacity for engaging in different collaborations in the school. We were really struggling with how to promote oral language to really young children, so we were able to say, ‘yeah that’s a question we all have.’ And we kind of went away and found resources and found some things and were able to meet back together. You’re better with three or four different peoples’ ideas and that was really profitable. We kind of together were able to say, ‘yeah, these are the areas of concern, let’s focus on oral language.’ We used half a pro-d day to bring all of our resources together so that was really helpful for the four of us (Lita, 2nd individual interview, June 2014). In the focus group interviews, a few teachers reflected on how taking part in the CR4YR initiative has impacted how they work and communicate with their colleagues. A neat part, being kind of in a supportive position, has been just the shared knowledge and the shared language. Even with teachers who I wasn’t in the same group as … For example, I was working with two teachers in the classroom and then we were taking part in Changing Results so I would go into the classroom and I would see things that they were changing and … think, ‘this is great because we are all on the same page and we all have the same knowledge and we can talk about the children with the same information and the same background.’ And even with this year at [school name], just kind of reading with kids and going back to the teachers and saying, ‘you’re doing a great job, I can tell. Keep doing what you are doing.’ And having that shared knowledge and shared language has been fabulous (Shanna, focus group interview, January 2017). 179 In the other focus group interview, Clea described how teachers at her school were working together in their various roles of support. The three of us would be in the room for periods of time and, again, that one child being our little bell weather in the classroom that we were watching. And we just built all kinds of programing around that … you could see that child through the different lenses. You could see that Diana was looking at him from one particular perspective that was a little bit different from the way that I would be looking and very different from the way the classroom teacher would. It was really interesting. But again, like you said, using all that same language in the approach we made. So, Diana knew they were working on this task in the classroom, that the teacher had done a story, modelled a story about this. So, when she pulled him out … they did the same kind of thing and she would say, remember when Ms. Sadie said this? (Clea, focus group interview, January 2017). Being able to see some change of culture within their schools or within the district was described by participants as being a positive outcome of having CR4YR in the school district. Many teachers described new collaborative inquiry initiatives they were participating in, or in some cases even leading in their schools. Clea explained the power of collaborative inquiry when she stated, “it’s quite amazing how a small thing can turn into such a school-wide practice and demand when you see the results” (Clea, focus group interview, January 2017). Kristy described the current culture in her school. We all really work together but I think going through that, I know that going through that Changing Results [for Young Readers] really shifted many of our conversations at school to be more focused and more intentional and more productive, regarding literacy, and more frequent. There are a couple of people on staff, we now can continue all of those 180 conversations and I do tie that back to the Changing Results. And we share resources and articles and on and on. And I know 100% that is where the conversations started (Kristy, focus group interview, January 2017). The purpose of most professional learning initiatives is to positively change practice in some way; however, it is often difficult to observe changes in practice or how teachers’ practice was impacted after the initiative is over. Some of the participants in this case study were able to describe how their practice, thinking, and collaboration efforts continued to change after CR4YR was finished. 5.14 Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes Some of the participants described a change of thinking or change of belief regarding some aspect of education. These changes were explained when participants had the chance to reflect on what they believe and how their thinking has changed over the past four years. If you teach kids to read, you have less kids in the office. If you really do, do this, then it does free you up. Because so many behaviours are because there is a mismatch between what the child can do and the expectations in the classroom. And also reading is such a calming, self-regulating thing that when they can do that, they feel successful. When we are doing pull out programs in isolation and we don’t know what is going on in the classroom we might as well not do it. It’s a one-shot wonder and the child is kind of going, ‘what was that? Why was I doing that?’ Because it’s so removed from the classroom (Clea, focus group interview, January 2017). Kristy explained a change in her own beliefs about teaching. 181 I think in the past I provided a lot of literacy experience and crossed my fingers and really hoped for the best. I was teaching a class and not teaching individuals. And I think for me that’s probably the biggest shift, as a classroom teacher when you have those 24 bodies in the class, how do you ensure you are providing individualized service for all of them? (Kristy, focus group interview, January 2017). Diana echoed that statement. So, I think I’m seeing kids individually more than I did before … I’m not just thinking, ‘this is how first graders read. Or this is how second graders read.’ Each child is different so there are some themes, but they are different, and they have to be taught according to what they need (Diana, focus group interview, January 2017). The focus group interviews provided the opportunity for participants to reflect on their learning and how they have noticed a change in their beliefs over time. Some teachers perceived that they had made important changes in their teaching practices and ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Many teachers used new practices in different teaching situations, which could suggest sustainability in the learning process. By engaging in inquiry, these teachers were essentially being asked to question, reflect, and make sense of their learning in ways that built new understanding and ideas about their teaching. In many cases, they noted that the research and resources provided through the PLC sessions helped them develop their own ideas about learning and teaching connected to their practices. 5.15 Summary of the Chapter Reading the participants’ interviews through the lens of relational learning offered a way of seeing how they experienced a sense of realness behind the role of the teacher when they 182 opened up with each other in an authentic way about their experiences. This opening seemed to create new spaces for learning about themselves and each other. Their constructions of knowledge and meaning in their teaching world were enriched through their ongoing relationships with each other. Relational learning was an important aspect of how these teachers came to better know each other, and themselves; through this sense of openness to who they were, they seemed to encourage an openness to new ideas, new knowledge, and new ways of learning together. In this case study of teachers’ experiences participating in CR4YR collaborative inquiry initiative there were several ways teachers engaged in meaningful professional learning influenced by their relationships with each other that were growing through this PLC initiative. Through their stories and narratives of their experiences, I found that teachers valued and engaged in being authentic when interacting with their PLC colleagues. Further, they came to experience the relational aspect of learning deepened over time as they increased connectedness and engaged in more substantial conversations about who they are as teachers. Finally, I found that their professional learning process consisted of change in practices that appeared to be related to changes in beliefs about teaching early reading that happened through their relationships with their colleagues that developed over time. These changes happened through and within the interactions they had with their colleagues and where the relationships they had supported them in questioning their beliefs in ways that led to them shifting their practices. In the next chapter I take up a discussion of these findings in relation to the research literature that formed the conceptual framework for this study. 183 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION There is deliberate focus in the field of education on the importance of professional learning for teachers (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hord et al., 2010; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007), emphasizing the need to consider learning in different ways to further our understanding of what it means for teachers to engage in meaningful and impactful professional learning opportunities. Although many school districts have the intention of cultivating a culture of collaborative professional learning for teachers, doing so in practice remains an elusive challenge given the complexity of teaching and learning (Campbell et al., 2016; Mitchell & Sackney, 2011; Timperley, 2011). As an example, professional learning communities are structures that have been readily implemented across schools, yielding important insights about how to create time and space for professional learning, and ways of offering resources and modeling processes for reflecting on practice to inform changes that will impact student learning (Kooy, 2015; Ning et al., 2015; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). However, despite the intent to create conditions for meaningful learning, there remains much to learn about how to establish PLCs that are effective structures for professional learning towards changes in teaching practice (Hairion, et al., 2011; Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2015). Through this case study, I explored a broader view of PLCs, offering a perspective that is often missing from the research on teacher learning in PLCs—the lived experiences of the teacher. I examined the teachers’ experiences over a two-year period of time within the same PLC initiative using a relational lens, providing a view of what it means for teachers to engage in learning with each other in ways that created relationships that helped grow their learning together. This view offers teachers’ experiences and insights that can help grow more awareness of the kinds of conditions that are important for teachers in terms of what they need and want in 184 their learning. A recent study by Newberry et al. (2018) focused on the interactional aspects, or features, of teacher professional relationships that may provide greater impact for teacher learning. The researchers argued that a focus on how relationships are connected to teacher learning and growth is an understudied area of research, and suggested that future studies may want to devote more attention to growing relationships that may foster sustainable teacher growth. A relational learning stance assumes that learning tends to happen in the spaces between people as we make sense of our experiences together (Biesta, 2004), where knowledge is co-constructed in a constant flow between and among people (Margonis, 2004). Relational learning is not just an acquisition and application of knowledge (Reeves, 2010), but a complex interaction of learning from and with others representing the essence of what it means to come together as humans to negotiate the worlds within which we work and live together (Palmer, 1993). This case study offers an illustrative example of teachers’ experiences of meaningful and impactful professional learning through the ongoing processes of forming, sustaining, and enjoying learning relationships with their colleagues. In this study, I focused on three characteristics of relational learning drawn from the theoretical framework informing this study to explore the teachers’ experiences of learning. Caring, valuing of differences, and a sense of belonging are evident in research and writing about relational learning and paying attention to the human capacities and tendencies within community as essential sites of learning (Biesta, 2010; Goodnough, 2010; Joliffe, 2015; Owens, 2015; Thayer-Bacon, 2004; Palmer, 2007; Hansen, 2011). These themes also resonate within the research and writing on PLCs in terms of the importance of building communities within which teachers can come together and learn from and with each other about how to grow and change their practices to improve student learning (Christman et al., 2016; Hairon et al., 2017; Hallum, 185 2015; Newberry et al., 2018). The research questions that guided this study served to focus more clearly on relational learning to open new ways of seeing what it means to teachers to learn in community: (1) In what ways does a relational lens provide new insights for fostering and supporting relevant, valuable and meaningful collective professional learning for teachers? (2) What qualities and characteristics of professional learning become evident through relational learning? and (3) How does conceptualizing PLCs from a relational epistemology provide a new perspective for organizing professional learning in ways that promotes building relationship? As I read through all of the narrative experiences gathered through this research, and engaged in a rich process of data analysis, several themes emerged as important insights on teacher learning in PLCs. I found that teachers appreciated and valued authenticity as they engaged with their colleagues in professional learning. Connecting and building relationships over time contributed to learning conditions where they were able to shift and change their beliefs and practices. As they came to understand and honour the expertise they each brought to their work in the classroom and with each other as learning colleagues, they started to engage in deeper theorizing about their own teaching and learning. In this chapter, I reflect on these main themes that emerged from this research in relation to the existing research on professional learning and learning communities. 6.1 Authenticity: Exploring Continuity, Community, and Care The teachers in this study seemed to value authenticity in how they experienced their learning relationships with their colleagues. Their dialogue reflected a growing sense of identity that was building for them as they showed up with each other as a full, and whole teacher, with successes and failures in their teaching, a fear that sharing all of who they are may be judged by 186 the learning community they were building together. Their descriptions of the relief and gratitude of being able to be authentic with each other when they realized this was becoming a safe community to share their practices was one aspect of their valuing authenticity. They also shared how they valued, appreciated, and needed for the learning experience itself to be an authentic experience linked to their classroom and student needs. This description of authenticity supports findings in current research on professional learning that indicates the importance of connecting learning to teachers’ interests and needs (Campbell et al., 2016; Butler & Schnellert, 2012; Schnellert et al., 2015). The PLC examined in this case study was specifically designed to connect teacher learning with student learning about reading with supports and funding in place to ensure teachers were developing learning about their students when they met for their PLC sessions. While this was a helpful structure for the teachers who participated in the CR4YR, we know from current research that most teachers are seeking opportunities to connect with their colleagues to learn about how to improve teaching for their students. Focusing on authentic learning connections for teachers in schools means providing time, space, and input when necessary to boost or enrich their thinking and move their inquiry ideas forward. For the teachers in this case, they appreciated this input coming from teachers within the district, who may not work closely with them, but who seemed to hold enough of an insider position to allow the teachers to relax into the other piece of authenticity that they expressed, the willingness to share openly about what was not working well. This sense of vulnerability was a challenge, or perhaps even created frustration or anxiety for them. From the experiences of these teachers, I suggest that meaningful and impactful collective learning also means paying attention to the relational qualities of the PLC to support and promote environments within which teachers will openly share about what they need to improve their practice. 187 From a relational lens, the teachers’ descriptions of authenticity at a more intimate level, of opening up and sharing with each other their vulnerabilities in their teaching and learning offers an additional layer to engaging in meaningful learning. Connecting it to teachers’ practices is essential. Creating opportunities for teachers to develop relationships within which they can show up with authenticity made a big difference for how these teachers experienced learning with each other as meaningful and impactful. From a relational epistemological perspective, relationships with others are the way through which people create new meanings for their experiences (Brownlee & Berthelsen; 2008; Thayer-Bacon, 2010). Given my work as a literacy specialist, and that the teachers were focused on literacy in this learning initiative, I thought it interesting to consider the idea of authenticity related to one of the stories that we often use when working with students. In her story, The Velveteen Rabbit, Margery Williams Bianco (2003) tells the tale of a rabbit coming to understand what it means to appreciate and value his true nature. Her descriptions of authenticity resonated with some of the ways the teachers were coming to see the benefits of showing up, with all their flaws and imperfections, with their colleagues. In this excerpt, the Skin Horse is describing to the Velveteen Rabbit what it means to become real through being in relationship with others: ‘Real isn't how you are made,' said the Skin Horse. 'It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.' 'Does it hurt?' asked the Rabbit. 'Sometimes,' said the Skin Horse, for he was always truthful. 'When you are Real you don't mind being hurt.' 'Does it happen all at once, like being wound up,' he asked, 'or bit by bit?' 'It doesn't happen all at once,' said the Skin Horse. 'You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be 188 carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand. (p. 48) In this passage, Bianco highlighted the genuine interaction that can happen when people interact with each other in a way that honours others for who they are. In this study, the participants were able to show up and be seen for who they really were—imperfect—and still welcome and valued in their learning community. A sense of judgment was anticipated but did not actualize in the voices of the participants. As an example, they mentioned that the process of videotaping their practice and watching the videos with colleagues proved to be valuable, even though this was a potentially vulnerable activity where their mistakes and missteps in the classroom would be fully visible for their colleagues. Just like the Velveteen Rabbit experienced authentic relationships when he became real, opening himself to others in ways that showed his tattered self and vulnerabilities, the participants noted that they felt a similar sense of authenticity in their relationships with their colleagues after they exposed the reality of their classroom experiences in all its mess and uncertainty. Their learning came through sharing the fullness and wholeness of their experiences, showing emotions, incompetence, failures, and celebrating successes together. Opening up to their colleagues about their doubts and uncertainties was not always easy, but for the participants it was a necessary step to deepen learning and engagement. 6.2 Authenticity Through Continuity Teachers who learn together and build knowledge together are more likely to see complexity in situations, seek diverse opinions, and enter into social learning situations 189 expecting to learn with and from others (Thayer-Bacon, 2010). From this relational learning perspective, knowledge is considered more of a verb, more of an activity, more of a relationship between experience and meaning (Thayer-Bacon, 1997). However, Brownlee and Berthelsen (2008) explained that “surface approaches to learning do not allow internal connections to be made between prior knowledge/beliefs brought to a new learning task and the new knowledge which the task was designed to achieve” (p. 409). For these participants, they were able to delve below the surface of their learning as they engaged through authentic relationships that were developed over time as they continued to meet regularly through this initiative. When participants spoke about coming back to the CR4YR for a second year, many participants described the power of skipping all the time spent building connections that was necessary in the first year. The teachers were able to be honest and open with each other right away, able to move more quickly and easily into deeper conversations that met their learning needs. Many of the participants described their busy lives as teachers and how the opportunity to learn with others in the CR4YR initiative gave them the time and space to breathe, think, reflect, and fully engage in the learning. It was more than coming together with a goal in mind, but allowing the learning to evolve over time at a slower pace that allowed teachers to get to know and trust one another, without feeling they were under a time pressure. Engaging in PLCs “are all about knowing, but also about being together living meaningfully, developing a satisfying identity, and altogether being human” (Wenger & Snyder, 1998, p. 134). This quote reflects the importance of building and growing, over a period of time, personal connections as the work of the PLC, of engaging with others in a way that is based on authenticity and characteristics of relational learning. A focus on the relational and affective aspects of professional learning that 190 develop over time offers opportunities for teachers to connect and engage with each other from a wholistic perspective, valuing the fullness of a human life as integral to the learning. The participants spoke about how they hoped their experiences of developing deep relationships with their colleagues through this initiative might carry over into working with others throughout their careers. Although two years does not appear to be long term in regards to learning initiatives, in education there seem to be few professional learning opportunities for teachers that build across several years (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018). Hostetler (2011) described continuity as the human desire to engage in experiences that impact previous and future happenings and create a more comprehensive understanding, rather than having an episode in isolation from other events. The teachers’ descriptions about the importance of continuity to develop meaningful relationships with their colleagues for deeper learning to happen are consistent with findings in recent research on PLCs that highlight how developing meaningful relationships contributes to teachers’ experiencing a sense of thriving personally and professionally and are integral to developing and sustaining PLCs (Chen & Weng, 2015; Choi Fung Tam, 2015b; Joliffe, 2015). According to Thayer-Bacon (2010), learning experience becomes more meaningful by actively experimenting and inquiring into real life as humans learn together. Framing professional learning as opportunities for teachers to develop “in relation to others” (Thayer-Bacon, 1997, p. 241) over continuous periods of time establishes the importance of encouraging and supporting relational learning environments for teacher professional learning. 6.3 Authenticity Through Community A relational learning perspective offers new ways of seeing teaching beyond the traditional structures of teaching that tended to have teachers working in isolation (Lortie, 1975), 191 toward a culture of community where teachers build and grow learning through developing bonds of trust and care as they open up to each other about their teaching and learning over time. Although there is a growing awareness in theory and practice of the importance of collaboration in schools, and teachers value opportunities to work with each other to build and grow their practices (Campbell, 2016), teaching can still be an isolating experience if the structures are not established to allow for community to be developed over time. Even if teachers are given the time to collaborate with others, there is not necessarily the conditions created for authentic professional learning experiences. Teachers benefit from having the release time, plus the desire to grow and learn with others in ways that build deep relationships within communities of learning. To develop effective, authentic PLCs, teachers need the dedicated time to learn in relation with others, and share vulnerabilities and experiences to grow together and strengthen relational bonds within the profession. As was described by the teachers in this study, opportunities to learn with other teachers is essential at all aspects of a career, not just when starting out or when needing to learn specific new content or practice. Steffy and Wolfe (2001) described the importance of creating an appropriate learning environment for teachers to continue to grow throughout their career, considering different needs at different phases along a continuum of the life cycle of a teacher. As reflected by the stories of these teachers, opportunities to build communities of learning with their colleagues over time offered support for their particular learning needs. The community became the needed opportunity for continual motivation and reflection on their practice (Steffy & Wolfe, 2001). The community that developed through the CR4YR initiative was built on caring and trusting relationships that developed over time as well as through the ongoing construction of knowledge that happened through reflecting together on their practices. This ongoing reflection 192 offered the opportunity for teachers to come to know themselves and each other in new ways as they talked through various practices and beliefs, both those they had in common and those that were different. Their community became a necessary space to think about their own beliefs about teaching and learning and to consider others’ beliefs in a safe place where they were free to be themselves with their colleagues and have honest discussions. The kind of dissonance that may come from discussions of beliefs that are different, or that create a sense of uncertainty, can be unsettling (Thayer-Bacon, 1997) as people challenge themselves and others, sometimes in debate. Having a foundation of trust, care, and respect that developed over time was important for productive conversations emerging out of the dissonance. As was described by some participants, opportunities to reflect on their own assumptions within the community allowed them to revise and refine their thinking (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2012; Thayer-Bacon, 1997; Mitchell & Sackney, 2009) as they learned to negotiate the different ways their colleagues were thinking and acting in their classrooms. Within a community, not only do members of the team need to value different perspectives and see the opportunity differences present, but the members also need to trust that they have something of value to contribute. 6.4 Authenticity Through Care The participants in this study described their desire to connect with others through the CR4YR initiative in ways that show caring for others. They explained how seeking out opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues was not only to discuss their teaching practice, but to develop personal relationships that were based on being authentic with one another. The participants also described how comfortable they felt walking into each other’s classrooms and, not only problem-solving together, but also joking around with each other. There was a sense of 193 fun and positiveness that the participants gained from their relationships with their colleagues. It was not always a serious conversation about their learning, but also the sense of joy and well-being they experienced through the bonding experience of learning together. Reducing their isolation as teachers was not only necessary for their professionalism and sense of building a culture of teaching, but also to build a positive work and learning environment. These teachers seemed to appreciate being in relationships where they felt a sense of belonging and intimacy among their learning team members. When the participants felt cared for, they were more apt to show vulnerability and openness to others’ opinions. When participants felt they were caring for others, they explained they began to view others in a way that made them actively listen and honour others’ perspectives. Experiencing and offering care seemed to lead to a deeper understanding of their own personal and professional capabilities and a deeper appreciation for others’ personal and professional capabilities. Thayer-Bacon (1997) pointed out that our sense of self is enhanced when we interact with people whom we have caring relationships. Similarly, Ndunda et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of caring for teachers to grow each other’s personal and professional growth and the growth of their students. Certainly, the participants in this study also reflected on the importance of caring relationships with their students, in order to support and grow student learning. Over time, they also came to appreciate their colleagues’ caring relationships as essential for their own professional and personal learning and growth, stating that they hoped to maintain their learning teams for as long as they could, knowing the benefits and satisfaction that came with the work of developing these caring relationships of professional learning as they open up to each other about who they are and what they hope to accomplish through their teaching. For the participants in this study, their professional and personal 194 relationships continued on after the CR4YR initiative ended, providing an on-going caring network. 6.5 Learning to Theorize: Exploring Intellectual Growth within Community Building relational learning environments has a considerable focus in research on student learning, however it proves to be an understudied area in teacher learning (Hallum et al., 2015; Joliffe, 2015; Kooy, 2015; Owen, 2015, 2016; Ning et al., 2015; Sindberg, 2016). Understanding teacher learning in PLCs through a relational learning lens provides a view of how relationships are often at the heart of how teachers come to understand their practice and grow new awareness of knowledge about their work. As I read through their descriptions of experiences with each other, I noticed how these teachers were learning to theorize together, learning to build ideas about why and how their practices worked or not in relation to what they were learning as a group about teaching reading. This theorizing emerged through the trust and care of their relationships as they offered their voices to the conversations about how to improve their teaching. Developing theory is a term used in many different contexts to mean many different things. As humans, we are constantly developing theory based on our day-to-day living. From a social constructivist perspective, humans are involved in the ever-evolving creation of meaning (Biesta, 2004; Bullough, 1997; Hansen, 2011; Hostetler, 2011; Macintyre-Latta, 2013). In the context of this study I use the term, theorizing, to refer to the process for teachers of determining among themselves and for themselves what works and what does not work in the classroom regarding their teaching and students learning and developing ideas, or theories, for why that may or may not be the case. Essentially, teaching is an uncertain and spontaneous craft where 195 teachers need a knowledge base to respond to the particularities that arise on a daily basis (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Hanifi (2010) described the necessity of promoting and strengthening the research role of teachers as an ethical and professional obligation to teachers given the ongoing responsibility of continually reflecting on and developing practice in ways that meet the needs of their students. In this study, the teachers engaged together as researchers of their own practices, reflecting on their work to determine better ways forward to improve their students’ learning experiences and enhance their professionalism. Traditionally, the main purpose of teacher professional learning has tended to be connected to improved student learning (Borko, 2004; Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2015; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Sun et al., 2017); however, what that learning has looked like for teachers has changed over the years. According to Opfer and Pedder (2011), in the 1980’s and early 1990’s many researchers were conducting studies that explored learning as contextual and situational, but when the notion of accountability was emphasized through educational policy the research on teaching became more mechanistic and linear to show direct results. In the past 20 years, research on professional learning has gradually moved away from mechanistic view of teaching to a more complex understanding of teaching as building on knowledge and expertise in teaching (Le Fevre, Timperley & Ell, 2015). Collaborative professional learning has the potential to provide opportunities for teachers to theorize their work, to co-construct the intellectual knowledge of teaching that can inform their practice (Chen & Wang, 2015; Cherrington & Thornton, 2015; Chestnut, 2015; Choi Fung Tam, 2015a; Hairon et al., 2015). Adaptive expertise is another term used by researchers to describe how teachers learn to develop deep conceptual knowledge to help them solve problems in novel situations (Le Fevre et al., 2015). As adaptive experts, “[teachers] embrace the complexity of students, curricula, and 196 potential pedagogical approaches as they repeatedly try to solve the challenges presented by students and their learning of the curriculum” (Le Fevre et al., 2015, p. 314). In contrast to the traditional understanding of the role of a teacher as developing routine practice, which focuses on the transmission of knowledge and practice of skills (Smith & Starmer, 2017), as adaptive experts teachers are assumed to be agents of their own learning, becoming theory developers with their colleagues as they wrestle with the various challenges of teaching and learning that they each bring to the PLC. From this perspective, teachers are seen “as highly competent professionals able to identify problems, use their extensive professional knowledge to enact strategies as solutions, and become active partners in their professional learning” (Smith & Starmer, 2017, p. 23). Essentially, the qualities that make a distinction between adaptive expertise and routine practice are the ability for teachers to “verbalize the principles underlying one’s skills” and modify their practice to address new situations that arise in the classroom (Le Fevre et al., 2015, p. 314). By reconceptualizing the role of the teacher to be one of a competent professional, using their expertise to further develop their practice is a step in the direction of combining practitioner and researcher into similar a combined role. Generally, developing adaptive expertise requires opportunities for deep learning through exploring theory and examining practice through ongoing, inquiry-based professional learning (Langdon, 2017; Le Fevre et al., 2015; Smith & Stamer, 2017; Soslau, 2012). Le Fevre et al. (2015) explained that professional learning which “provides teachers with sets of strategies and practices independently of deep conceptual understanding … does not build adaptive expertise” (p. 317). As demonstrated by the design of CR4YR, professional learning that is intentionally designed to create opportunities for generative improvement, cycles of inquiry, and distribution 197 of expertise across school districts has the chance of creating opportunities for empowering teachers in their own learning and further developing their sense of professionalism. In this study, I observed that the teachers began to reflect on their work in ways that suggested a process of theorizing after a few years working together in their PLCs. The teachers had previously spoken about their work together as mostly sharing ideas for implementing activities they were learning in the professional resources and tweaking practice in some way to see the results. It was interesting to note that their conversations in the focus groups that took place after the initiative had ended seemed to have a different tone when talking about their teaching; they seemed to be making more sense of their practice in relation to ideas they were building together in the PLCs about teaching and learning. Although the difference is subtle, sharing ideas about how to do a practice is different than trying to make sense of why a practice may or may not work, discerning possible ways forward, drawing on previous knowledge, and working together to build new knowledge. Through building their learning relationships through their PLC journey they seemed to build and grow confidence for being able to work through their challenges in ways that reflected and resonated with ideas of theorizing or adaptive expertise. Most professional learning currently available to teachers is about teachers as practitioners, not teachers as thinkers (Bullough, 1997; Cohran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Macintyre-Latta, 2013; Timperley, 2013). In other words, professional learning usually involves something being ‘done’ to teachers, rather than the opportunity for teachers to co-construct knowledge and be a part of developing pedagogy (Cherkowski et al., 2018; Guskey, 2002; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007), where teachers are encouraged to become active agents of their own learning through teacher-directed, job-embedded, collaborative, inquiry-oriented teaching and learning (Biesta, 2004; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2013; Hord et al., 2010; Hostetler, 2011; Mitchell & 198 Sackney, 2009; Timperley, 2013). This notion of teachers building capacity as theorizers through the PLC experience resonates with findings in recent case studies describing the needs for teacher engagement through professional learning initiatives (Burke & Collier, 2017; Chen & Wang, 2015; Hands et al., 2015; Kooy, 2015; Margalef & Pareja Roblin, 2016; Owen, 2015, 2016) and through collective theory development (Christman et al., 2016). 6.6 Theorizing Though Engagement with Theory and Practice The participants in this study brought their practice and newly developing theories together in ways that affected the decisions they made in the classroom. According to Knight (2002), this “theorization shifts the emphasis in professional development thinking away from individuals and courses to systemic, complex understandings of the ways in which learning is created and shared within communities of practice” (p. 229). Without the opportunity to merge theory and practice and consider the learning from past experiences, engagement in the learning may be hindered. Brownlee and Berthelsen (2010) explained that in order to promote relational epistemological thinking, teachers should be supported in their endeavors to engage in their learning by making connections between theory and practice. That sense of encouragement or support can come from professional learning leaders as they design learning opportunities that give teachers the time and opportunities to not only learn in relation with others, but also inquire into their practice and tweak practice in ways that allow for experimentation in teaching, while further evolving theories. The theory-practice divide has been documented as a problem when considering educational research, with assumptions that on one side of education there are teachers working as practitioners living out the experience of education and on the other side are researchers 199 working as theorists determining how teachers should be teaching (Day, 2004; Macdonald & Shirley, 2009). This divided view of practice and theory means that practitioners may not see their work as building and living out theory and theorists are not necessarily considering the real life of teachers in their research. To mediate this divide, we need to start seeing ways of overlap, or an interdependency within these roles (Bullough, 1997; Day & Chi-Kin Lee, 2011; Hanifi, 2010; Macintyre-Latta, 2013). One of the ways the educational community perpetuates the theory-practice divide is that practitioners are viewed as consumers of research, not actively involved in the process of research for the purpose of building expertise. Thinking about teachers as theorizers offers a link between theory and practice, a way of understanding teaching a a simultaneously engagement between the two, which cannot and should not be separated (Bullough, 1997; Macintyre-Latta, 2013). Over a century ago Dewey (1916) wrote about the importance of theory and practice merging into one to build expertise. However, the traditional structure of schooling, which is still in place in many educational situations, does not provide the necessary time and space for teachers to question, explore, theorize, and change practice based on their own learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Hanifi, 2010; Lortie, 1975), learning to see what “gains substance and takes shape” (Macintyre-Latta, 2013, p. 86) in classrooms as teachers start to see their work as an intersection of theories and practices. More typically, professional learning continues to be carried out through a delivery model of professional learning, which usually involves bringing in an expert to present knowledge to a large group of teachers, has been widely used and accepted in the educational community for many years (Mitchell & Sackney, 2009). This kind of professional learning opportunity does not take into account the social dimension of learning (Dewey, 1916; Knight, 2002; Lieberman, 1995; Mockler, 2013; Wenger & Snyder, 1998). When an expert is brought in 200 to transfer knowledge about a topic in education, that topic may not be directly relevant to many of the teachers in the audience, which describes why this form of professional learning often has a limited influence on improving teacher’s practice and limited engagement in learning (Lieberman, 1995; Knight, 2002). In this study, the participants spoke about the power of focusing on the cyclical nature of learning that the CR4YR model was designed to offer and that the teachers felt less pressure to essentially be finished learning. The professional learning opportunity they experienced through this PLC initiative offered them a sense of congruence between their learning and practice as they were able to come back to the same learning group again and again to notice together how their joint learning and theorising was affecting their students’ learning. Opfer and Pedder (2011) argued that, “Learning in one system must affect and be enacted and supported in another system. As a result, ‘effective’ teacher learning requires multiple and cyclic movements between the systems of influence in teachers’ worlds” (p. 386). Finding ways to provide teachers with opportunities to shape their identity through theorizing with colleagues is an important aspect of teacher engagement in professional learning. Part of theorizing is finding what Van Manen (1994) called a teacher’s life story. When teachers engage in collaborative inquiry, they consider what area of their practice they would like to inquire into and how to conduct the inquiry; hence, they are finding relevance in their learning while considering what would be meaningful enough for them to put the time and effort into an analysis. In other terms, they are in charge of narrating their own learning journey. Van Manen (1994) explained: Self-knowledge is related to the search for one’s own life story. Thus, by engaging in such narrative ‘theorizing’ teachers may further discover and shape their personal 201 pedagogical identity, and through such stories they can give accounts of the way they have developed over time into the kind of persons they are now (p. 154). Developing this capacity for theorizing takes time and practice, and as was described by the teachers in this study, is often done best in relation with trusted colleagues who offer a safe, non-judgmental atmosphere within which to try out new ideas and share the successes and failures that come with trying new practices. The beginning stages of professional learning tend to be about talking with each other about ideas that can be readily implemented in their classrooms, an opportunity to learn about what others are doing through a sharing and gathering of general classroom activities. For the teachers in this study, going deeper into their learning about teaching together through the ongoing collaborative inquiry happened over a period of time as they began to develop relationships that opened spaces for them to begin to develop together their own theories about their practice, essentially developing what Macintyre-Latta (2013) referred to as practitioner knowledge. Macintyre-Latta (2013) further explained that, “within the inquiry process lives a worthwhile direction, a medium for teaching and learning that asks teachers and students to participate through adapting, changing, building and creating meaning together” (p. 2). The teachers needed time together to build deeper learning conversations that allowed them to progress together into a level of dialogue that enabled a shift in how they learned to see and talk about their teaching beyond surface sharing to understand how they could find the answers together to the questions they were asking about their practice. The teachers in this study were fortunate to have the time, space, structures, and funding offered from a Ministry-directed initiative that afforded them the opportunities to co-create a learning environment that made sense to them, opening up the space for authentic conversations about real issues in their classrooms. They were able to navigate conversations together to get at 202 the heart of what it meant to each of them to be a teacher in their particular context and grew to care about and for each other as they spent more and more time learning together. Their experiences reminded me of Bullough’s (1997) notion of what a supported and flexible learning environment can feel like for teachers: To teach is to testify and also to care about, converse, and connect with others who experiences differ from our own. To teach is to enable boundary crossing while seeking to build a sense of belonging to a wide and ethically grounded community. Lastly, … seeking to develop teaching skills and eventually artistry in teaching necessitates opportunities to teach, to test and explore methods and techniques under the guidance of thoughtful teacher-critics while at the same time engaging in ongoing data-driven self evaluation (p. 22). Shifting conversations about teaching to focus on student learning in ways that promotes and supports the kinds of theorizing that builds practitioner knowledge means shifting toward more learning opportunities for more teachers that affords them the time, space, structures, and resources to grow their way together toward deeper professional learning. Ministry-funded and directed professional learning initiatives such as the CR4YR are helpful and important for shifting the landscape of professional learning. At the same time, schools and districts can be shifting the ways they offer teachers opportunities to build learning relationships over time that grow learning communities that are relevant and valuable for them and their students. 6.7 Building Expertise Through Merging Theory and Practice A clear difference in the discussion with participants during the focus group interviews and the earlier individual interviews was that the teachers were noticing and talking about their sense of expertise after they had participated in CR4YR for two years. Perhaps it is the 203 integration of knowledge and experience that assisted in the teachers’ development of a level of expertise; however, experience alone often does not lead to a sense of expertise (Tsui, 2009). Expertise is a process rather than an attribute, and it is by “resisting automaticity and the reliance on habitual performance that one develops expertise” (Tsui, 2009, p. 423). Even though the participants did not self-identify as experts, the way that they described their knowledge and how they felt about teaching early reading during the focus group interviews revealed to me that they were perhaps feeling a sense of expertise and feeling more empowered as teachers. Tsui (2009) explained that teachers may develop expertise through “making explicit the tacit knowledge that is gained from experience. I refer to this capability as ‘theorizing practical knowledge.’ It also involves being able to make personal interpretations of formal knowledge, through teachers’ own practice in their specific contexts of work. I refer to this as ‘practicalizing theoretical knowledge’” (p. 429). In this study, I found that many of the participants described their experiences in ways that suggested they were developing what Tsui (2009) explained as a sense of theorizing practical knowledge and practicalizing theoretical knowledge. A recent redesign of the K-12 provincial curriculum in British Columbia has been implemented over the past couple of years. The new curriculum is a concept-based approach to learning through the development of competencies with the intent of fostering a deeper, more transferable learning for BC students. The focus of the new curriculum is on competencies involving critical thinking, creative thinking, and social and personal responsibility. The foundational underpinnings of the new curriculum are to better prepare students for the future by engaging them in their own learning through offering flexibility and choice in inquiry-based learning. As a concept-based, competency-driven approach to learning, “Three elements, the content (Know), curricular competencies (Do), and big ideas (Understand) all work together to 204 support deeper learning” (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 3). Essentially, the BC Ministry of Education is moving away from the list of skills as objectives and moving towards a curriculum based on being responsive to students’ learning. This change in curriculum allows for some of the necessary conditions for teachers to not only be more responsive to their students, but also it affords them the autonomy to develop theories based on their developing practitioner knowledge. The BC Ministry of Education (2015) stated: Although learning standards are described within areas of learning, there is no requirement for teachers to organize classrooms, schools or instruction in this manner. In effect, the Ministry of Education defines the ‘what’ to teach but not the ‘how’ to organize the time, space or methods to teach it (p. 6). This curriculum offers teachers the opportunity to be responsible for the how to teach with an evolving expectation that teachers adapt and tweak their teaching based on the response of the students. They have the time to engage in a joint endeavor with students to explore personal and collective curiosities. According to the Ministry of Education (2015): [it is] Through demonstration of the core and curricular competencies, [that] students are bound to form questions that provide insight into their thinking. Questions generated by both students and teachers are critical to encouraging a sense of wonder and curiosity among students. (p. 6) This path leads teachers further away from checking learning outcomes off a list and towards changing the way they teach to be ever-evolving. Looking back on the CR4YR initiative I noticed that this opportunity provided teachers with a head start in thinking about these new ways of teaching a few years before the new curriculum was implemented. Because CR4YR was a collective inquiry into teachers’ practice, 205 the teachers were given the time and space to develop questions (curiosities) and try out different strategies, learning environments, or approaches with students in the area of reading instruction. The expectation was that the teachers would engage in observation and analysis while being supported and learning with and from others. They would engage in teacher collaboration and ongoing professional conversations that would further work to develop their practitioner knowledge. The words used by the CR4YR Provincial Resource Team involved words like: tweak practice, play around with ideas, take-risks, trust your observations and notice your students’ abilities. These words were intended to engage teachers in active inquiry into their teaching to notice the effects with their students and then adapt as necessary. Although the teachers in this study were not necessarily using that language after the first year of the study, I noted a difference in the way teachers were talking about learning after they participated in two years of the collaborative inquiry initiative. During these focus group conversations, teachers seemed to have more confidence talking about their expertise developed with their colleagues as they learned to inquire into and reflect on their practices in ways that built more and more knowledge about teaching reading. With this confidence came increased risk-taking in the classroom and increased on-going collaboration with other teachers. Teachers were essentially engaging in theorizing practical knowledge (Tsui, 2009) when they reflect on their practice and built theories based on their observations. 6.8 Theorizing Through Empowerment within groups of Teachers Historically, teaching in isolation without the ability to adapt classroom teaching and learning based on teacher knowledge led to weak professional commitment and low sense of efficacy (Lortie, 1975). In general, efficacy can be defined as the belief that one possesses the 206 ability to perform their job effectively (Janssen, 2004). However, when teachers are able to redesign how they teach based on their ability to develop theories about teaching and learning from experience, collaboration, and on-going professional learning, they may grow an increased sense of empowerment (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994; Tran & Nguyen, 2013). Teacher empowerment is defined by Smith and Greyling (2006) as including two broad categories: enabling experiences for teachers and allowing teachers to display existing competencies, while learning new ones. This approach can be connected to teachers having the opportunity and encouragement to develop theories by enabling teachers to reflect on their existing competencies and redefining them as they continue to learn. When teachers have the autonomy and encouragement to thoughtfully consider decisions and implement them, they gain confidence over their own abilities to make those decisions that ultimately can impact student learning. As was shown through this case study, opportunities for empowerment tended to emerge through and with the group experience as they gained confidence and a comfort around risk-taking. Jumani and Malik (2017) explained that when teachers are empowered by accepting “responsibilities and finding their power in knowledge they start to accept challenging situations and positively inquire [into] educational issues and learn new instructional methods that help them to promote self-trust in classrooms and curriculum decisions” (p. 22). On the other hand, that sense of empowerment may be diminished when teachers are expected to follow strict rules and procedures that do not leave room for developing theories and implementing new courses of action based on their experiential learning (Jumani & Malik, 2017; Macdonald & Shirley, 2009). The CR4YR initiative was set up to follow a specific format, but there was flexibility within that format to ensure teachers’ needs were being met as they continued to participate. For example, some participants spoke about the importance of continually revising and reflecting on 207 their inquiry question. As teachers had new wonderings, they were able to explore new ideas and put their theories to the test in their classrooms. The cyclical nature of this kind of inquiry-based learning led to teachers having the ability to adjust their thinking and teaching as their learning deepened and expanded, leading to a sense of empowerment. They were essentially merging theory and practice in ways that were more intentional. Squire-Kelly (2012) described the connection between empowerment and theory developing by stating that the teacher needs to be an active participant in decisions about teaching and learning. In addition, it is not only about acknowledging teachers’ contributions to improving student learning, but also the encouragement to be involved in the direction of that student learning based on their knowledge and observations (Squire-Kelly, 2012). Having both the skills and the knowledge to improve teaching and learning conditions gives teachers a sense of confidence that they are an integral component of the education system, and therefore, important (Bogler & Somech, 2004). Teacher empowerment is linked to improved classroom practice because teachers have the encouragement and responsibility to solve ongoing problems as they occur based on their knowledge and experience (Tannehill & MacPhail, 2017). In this study, not only did the participants express increased confidence and efficacy by developing a belief they could support students who were struggling with learning how to read, but they also had a sense of empowerment to take ownership for their learning by continually adapting their learning journey. If teachers are feeling a sense of competency to assume responsibility for decision making that impacts their students’ learning, they are likely to continue to engage in improving their pedagogy. Tannehill and MacPhail (2017) stated that for teachers to feel empowered they must believe they can use their knowledge and skills to positively influence student learning. 208 Short and Greer (1997) described six dimensions of teacher empowerment as: 1. Decision-making – participation in critical decisions that directly affect their work. 2. Professional growth – opportunities to grow and develop professionally. 3. Status – professional respect and admiration from colleagues. 4. Self-efficacy – perception that one has the skills and abilities to facilitate learning. 5. Autonomy – control certain aspects of work and make decisions. 6. Impact – perception that one has a worthwhile effect and influence on students and their learning. (p. 90) Empowerment was lived out in this study in various ways. For example, the initial purpose of participating in CR4YR was to increase teachers’ knowledge about early reading through professional growth. In the focus group interviews, participants spoke about the necessity to tweak areas of their practice and notice the results over time. There was a sense of autonomy necessary for teachers to have the time and space to adapt their practice, along with the ability to make those on-going decisions and notice how student learning was being impacted. During the focus group interviews, the participants described an increase in their confidence and self-efficacy regarding teaching reading, and how they continued to adapt practice based on new learning and collaborating with colleagues. Significantly, many participants described a positive feeling of confidence that they could rely on their own knowledge and experience to figure out why a student was struggling with reading and teach to their strengths, rather than rely on an expert to give them advice or take over the process of teaching students who were struggling with early reading. This empowerment seemed to emerge and evolve through the relationships that formed within the group. These relationships were felt as encouragement and support the each other to take risks, grow, and experience set backs in their teaching, and contributed to the 209 sense of empowerment for building and growing their sense of confidence in the work they could do with their students and colleagues. Viewing the experiences of these teachers through a relational lens offered new ways of understanding what it means for teachers to engage in collective learning that leads to transforming their ideas about and practices of teaching. As described by the participants, this transformation happens as they experienced deep learning that tended to occur through relationships of care and trust where they felt safe to share who they are and how they teach in an authentic way. Through the ongoing learning experiences in relationship with their colleagues they noted that they developed a sense of expertise as they merged practice and theory through the PLC experiences. These relationships afforded both intellectual and affective benefits that were important for the teachers to continue to grow and learn together. 6.9 Viewing PLCs from a Relational Lens: Professional Learning as a Wholistic Experience In professional learning, teachers appreciate opportunities to integrate new knowledge and understanding of pedagogy into their existing practice as a way of inquiring into changing practice to better meet the needs of their students (Campbell et al., 2016). Thinking about how teachers engage intellectually, socially, and emotionally with and through others with whom they form caring relationships offers additional insights about creating conditions for meaningful teacher professional learning. In his research on holistic pedagogy, Miller (1998) described a broader vision of learning that included nurturing the human spirit alongside intellectual growth by focusing on three key elements in holistic learning – balance, inclusion, and connection. Viewing the experiences of the teachers in this case study from a relational lens highlighted the importance of creating space and time for teachers to engage holistically in their collective 210 learning, forming bonds of trust, care, safety, and respect that were essential to their willingness to take the risks necessary to grow and learn, and to feel they were part of a community making a difference with their students and with each other. They were able to be vulnerable and open with each other knowing that they were not being judged or that others were not critical of them when they opened up about mistakes or uncertainties. This relational learning experience seemed to bind them together, intellectually, socially, and emotionally. This understanding of professional learning as a wholistic experience may connect to what Palmer (2007) referred to as the “inward and invisible grace” that builds community and continues to further bind the community together through shared learning experiences. As the participants engaged in building trusting and caring relationships through the development of community, they seemed to grow more comfortable taking risks with their practices and engaging in theory development with others. A sense of empowerment seemed to emerge after the participants developed increased expertise through playing with ideas and tweaking practices to observe what happens and then share their learning with their learning teams and with the PLC. A wholistic perspective on professional learning connects the intellectual development for teachers that is typically assumed with learning community experiences with the affective nature of learning that promotes a focus on emotional, relational, and social connectedness of what it means to come together to grow and learn (Biesta, 2004; Brownlee & Berthelsen; 2008; Palmer, 1993; Thayer-Bacon, 2004). This wholistic perspective of professional learning reflects Miller’s (1998) ideas about the importance of balance, inclusion, and connection in learning, valuing and attending to matters of the mind and the heart as teachers as they engage in learning in relation. Engaging in this constant construction and reconstruction of knowledge in relationships of trust, care, and belonging allows teachers to clarify their own perspective of 211 themselves, their own self-identity as they learn about who they are in relation to differences and commonalities of others in their community (Thayer-Bacon, 2010; Van Manen, 1997). Thinking about teacher professional learning as identity work (Mockler, 2011, 2013; Musanti & Pence, 2010) means understanding professional learning as “the way that teachers, both individually and collectively, view and understand themselves as teacher” (Mockler, 2011, p. 519). McGregor (2014) reminds us that in order to “effect change in teacher practice, one must alter teacher beliefs, how teachers think about their professional role or identity” (p. 92). From this perspective, professional learning has the potential to support the formation of “robust teacher identities” and allow teachers to develop their capacities in relation to their situational contexts (Mockler, 2013, p. 45). Mockler (2013) pointed out that “when professional learning is viewed through the lens of professional identity, it becomes about ‘formation’, the ongoing ‘becoming’ of teachers, and thus necessarily transcends the technical rational conceptualisations [sic] of teachers’ lives and work embedded in the teacher quality agenda and embodied in standards regimes” (p. 42). Professional identities are often formed in relation-to-others through social learning (Thayer-Bacon, 2010) and enacted through professional practice (Wenger, 1998). Professional identity grows out of developing a personal educational philosophy which is formed by past experiences, interacting with students and colleagues and considering different perspectives over the course of their career (Mockler, 2011). This process is messy and non-linear – it is a re-conceptualization and re-articulation of professional stories and experiences. According to Mockler (2011), collaborative learning provides the time and space for teachers to systematically reflect on their own practice, dialogue with others about their practice, theorize their practice, and gain a deeper understanding of who they are and why they do with they do. Thinking about 212 professional learning as ongoing identity work offers additional support and encouragement for creating conditions for teachers to build robust and rich relationships in community, where they can grow a sense of authenticity and confidence in themselves and their work as they share their known knowledge and co-construct new knowledge together. 6.10 Wholistic Professional Learning Figure 2: Relational Learning in PLCs: Wholistic Professional Learning Through a relational learning lens, I noticed how these teachers were describing their learning in ways that created depth in intellectual growth, as they learned how to develop theories and test out their theories in their classroom. I also noticed the deepening of relationships as these teachers continued to learn with and from others in the PLC, learning how to work together in ways that built and grew a meaningful learning community. Initially, I Community Empowerment Engagement Relational Learning Relational Learning Relational Learning Wholistic Professional Learning Care Theorizing Continuity Authenticity Relational Learning Relational Learning Expertise 213 focused on the characteristics of caring, belonging, and valuing differences in a community of learners. As I analyzed the data, it was interesting to note how these teachers valued both the affective and intellectual growth they had over time with their colleagues, as these teachers shared descriptions of experiences that seemed to reflect a complex learning dynamic that had many layers of connection and growth. For example, they described the importance of laughing together and supporting each other through the various ups and downs in their work, as well as the importance of creating space for failure that involved commiseration rather than judgment. They shared about the value of becoming comfortable in how they were sharing their practice with colleagues, often leading to a heightened sense of efficacy in their roles as teachers, and the appreciation of witnessing their colleagues’ expertise and mastery as they came to know them more fully as educators and colleagues. The complexity of their relational learning is difficult to capture in a conceptual framework, knowing that the linearity of a visual will never capture the vibrancy, interdependency, and multi-dimensionality of their relational experiences. However, I offer the following visual as an interpretation of how these teachers practiced relational learning in this PLC developing both affective and intellectual capacities. Through the theme of authenticity, I demonstrated that caring for others (Noddings, 2013), engaging over periods and time with others in relational learning (Hostetler, 2011) and the importance of seeing community as an ongoing, active, process (Macintyre Latta, Schnellert, Ondrik & Sasges, 2017), were affective aspects important to how these teachers described the meaningfulness of this professional learning initiative. From a more intellectual side, the participants described their learning as they developed theories and tested their theories in their classrooms to continually evolve their knowledge and understanding of teaching students to read. This intellectual growth was developed and sustained within the deep relationships they made 214 with their colleagues (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018), reflected as a deeper level of expertise (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2010), and a sense of empowerment that they could make instructional decisions that were responsive to their students’ needs (Smith & Greyling, 2006). The participants’ stories resonated with a strong valuing of the intellectual, emotional, and social growth they experienced through this professional learning, stories that were brought into focus through using a relational lens to view their experiences within the PLC. A significant aspect of creating professional learning as a wholistic experience involved leadership and facilitation of the PLC. As I engaged with the participants as a PLC leader and a researcher, the connections deepened and I was able to be responsive to the needs of the teachers. The concept of a relational leader is highlighted in organization research as being important for authentic community to develop and flourish (Barden & Mitchell, 2007; Blossing & Liljenberg, 2019; Chang & Johnson, 2010). Chang and Johnson (2010) noted that characteristics of relational leaders include high-quality relational skills, such as caring for others and connecting to the well-being of others. Such characteristics are evident in the conceptual framework describing conditions that may create wholistic professional learning for PLCs, which may contribute to the overall development of this kind of learning for teachers. As I deepened my involvement with the PLC, I came to understand and self-identify my role as a relational leader in this study. It is through the development and re-development of self-identity that relational learners come to view themselves in relation to others (Chang & Johnson, 2010). Through the continuation of trust and commitment over time with other members of the PLC I realized the importance of the role of a relational leader to work within the flexibility and constant creation and re-creation of the community to ensure the values and purposes of the PLC were being honoured (Barden & Mitchell, 2007). As I reflected on the importance of a relational leader in 215 creading conditions for wholistic professional learning, I realized the concept of relational leadership was connected to the concept of relational learning as a way of creating authentic communities that share characteristics of how the PLC engaged in their interactions with others, such as caring for others and honouring each other’s uniqueness. This relational lens offers new ways of seeing professional learning that opens spaces for a more wholistic understanding of learning that values a balanced approach to learning, one that values and encourages teachers to engage fully in professional learning, moving and filling hearts and minds. 6.11 Contributions to Literature The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of what it means to teachers to engage in meaningful professional learning by studying a specific PLC through a relational learning lens. In this way I offered insights and conceptualizations of professional learning for growing the research and practice on PLCs. Through this relational lens, I offer an alternative view to the technical, instrumental understanding of professional learning in PLCs, illuminating instead the potential for meaningful and deep learning that can happen in relationship as participants engage together in ways that grow their intellectual, emotional, and social capacities for teaching and learning. By focusing on relational learning in this study, I offer a fresh perspective that de-emphasizes the recipe approach to collective learning, and instead focuses on what I am referring to as wholistic professional learning. Recently, the need for an extensive study into the state of professional learning in Canada was imminent due to the international attention Canada was receiving for student achievement (OECD, 2016). In British Columbia, Brown, Hales, Kuehn and Steffensen (2017) carried out an in-depth case study of the state of professional learning in this province. The purpose was to highlight key initiatives that exemplified the landscape of learning over the geographical and 216 philosophical diversity of the province in order to create a common experience among teachers. Brown et al. (2017) reported recommendations for organizing professional learning that builds professional capital and human capacities, balances personal and systemic needs, and is long-term and job-embedded to create a supportive culture. I aimed to build on these findings by studying what it means to teachers to learn from a relational perspective in a PLC. Exploring characteristics of relational learning within a PLC revealed the importance of attending to how both intellectual and affective components of learning are developed when teacher professional learning is designed to encourage building relationships and developing theories through collective learning. Specifically, I described what teacher professional learning looks like from a relational perspective and connected it to intellectual learning through theory development as a model to suggest that for wholistic learning to occur professional learning needs to be designed to consider creating conditions for both mind and heart. In addition, the findings from this study reflected the importance for teacher engagement in collaborative inquiry within a PLC for a sustained period of time to create relational opportunities that open the space for them to authentically reflect on, discuss, question, and theorize within their community. Through this relational approach, the teachers developed capacities for theorizing and growing a sense of adaptive expertise. Growth contributed to the teachers improved sense of competency and empowerment to make decisions that impacted their students’ learning. As well, professional learning for these participants was connected to the process of gaining more awareness of self-identity, which allowed them the time and space for developing and re-developing their identities as teachers with and through their relationships with each other. Finally, through the notion of being authentic, I demonstrated that coming to know each other over a longer period of time offers opportunities for growing relationships of caring. Additionally, experiencing the 217 development of the community over time as they came back together to learn again and again offered a substantial and rich way to experience community as an ongoing practice, an important aspect of how these teachers described their professional learning as meaningful and impactful. This study contributes to the research on PLCs through a different conceptualization of wholistic professional learning. Further, this study responds to the call in the current PLC research for more studies examining relationships within PLCs, and how those human connections are developed and sustained through the framework of professional learning (Kooy, 2015; Ning et al., 2015; Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007). Finally, the findings from this study can inform educational policy and practice as school districts consider ways to build and deepen professional learning for educators at all career levels and stages as an essential aspect of school improvement. 6.12 Recommendations In this section I offer recommendations for how to organize teacher professional learning in ways that promote and encourage a wholistic perspective of professional learning. The professional learning that the teachers in this study experienced occurred within a specific, Ministry-initiated and funded model offered to hundreds of teachers in the province. Although this study is not intended to be a review of the CR4YR initiative, there are important, general learnings that informed the recommendations I suggest for growing professional learning community opportunities for many more teachers in many more schools. Although the learnings that emerged from a small group of teachers in this particular learning community, they are supported by current research on professional learning and could serve to inform shifts in how we offer teachers opportunities for professional learning. 218 Teachers in this study appreciated the on-going connection with their teams in the schools and the ability to be a part of the larger district PLC in seven sessions throughout each year. In addition, these teachers described their appreciation for having release time to reflect on their practice, inquire with others, and learn about pedagogy through professional resources and research. An important aspect of the CR4YR initiative for these teachers was the autonomy to inquire into areas of interest and areas of need of their students. Additionally, there were aspects of the CR4YR model that may have hindered relational learning from developing. For instance, some participants spoke about the lack of vulnerability showed when the provincial facilitator was leading the PLC sessions. Although the provincial facilitator offered expertise on emergent reading, the safe, trusting environment created was somewhat hindered when she was present. The concept of relational leadership may be an important aspect to explore in further research, in order to develop an understanding of how relational learning is cultivated in regards to relational leadership. Another aspect that inhibited participation in CR4YR was the necessity to engage in inquiry as a school team. In some of our small, rural schools it was difficult for some teachers to find willing teachers to participate in the inquiry, and therefore, some teachers were not able to participate. Although this is not a review of the CR4YR model or initiative, it is important to describe the benefits and drawbacks of the CR4YR model for the teachers in this study. The benefits outlined in this study align with Campbell et al.’s, (2016) study that highlighted teachers’ desire to have job-embedded, collaborative learning experiences that are on-going throughout the year. As an educational community, we should be paying attention to organizing professional learning initiatives that follow the basic model of CR4YR and allow for further opportunities and encouragement of developing authentic communities where teachers are empowered to develop theories through an honouring of their knowledge and expertise. To add 219 to the growing body of research on PLCs, a fresh perspective of teacher professional learning can be focused on designing relational learning environments that are lead by relational leaders that allow on-going opportunities for teachers to build knowledge together through connecting theory and practice, based on inquiry, research, and authentic interaction. This may lead to teachers redesigning how they teach as they continually reflect on their practice and consider new ways of engaging in pedagogy. The following recommendations are offered in the spirit of contributing to improving teacher professional learning opportunities for all teachers in all schools. I recognize that these recommendations are limited by the small nature of this qualitative case study, and by the particular nature of these teachers’ experiences within a Ministry-initiated and supported PLC opportunity. The recommendations are likely useful for those at the school and district level who organize and implement professional learning initiatives for teachers, such as those in positions like myself as a district literacy helping teacher. In addition, the recommendations are directed toward provincially organized professional learning initiatives for teachers by the B.C. Ministry of Education, such CR4YR and by the BCTF, such as Teaching Inquiry Program. I refer to people who organize professional learning initiatives, both at the district level and provincially, as professional learning leaders. The following suggestions focus on several conditions that will be important for learning leaders to consider in order to promote and support conditions for teachers to experience wholistic professional learning: 1. The opportunity for teachers to engage in ongoing inquiry into their practice with their colleagues. Through inquiry, teachers can have the time and space to reflect on their own practice and link it to what they are learning about in resources, from colleagues, in discussions. Time is 220 one of the biggest hurdles in professional learning for teachers even though it is so important to have the time to reflect on learning and practice. Collaborative inquiry is about being open to new learning and being willing to take some actionable steps towards changing practice in some way. Although inquiry questions are integral in the process of inquiry, there is more emphasis on the learning that is the by-product of questioning practice and trying out different strategies in order to determine if the efforts are making a difference for the learners (Halbert & Kaser, 2013). I suggest professional learning leaders encourage teachers to become inquiry-orientated educators (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018; McGee & Lawrence, 2009) that are interested in research-based evidence, which includes research that is generated through inquiring into one’s practice. Encouragement can develop through facilitated learning that is flexible in process, but that provides guidance through the inquiry cycle for teachers who require different levels of support based on their experience with inquiry-based learning and their comfort level with this kind of learning (Cherkowski & Schnellert, 2018). 2. The necessary time to build community and develop learning relationships. When we talk about long term professional learning initiatives, often we consider a school-year cycle. I suggest that schools organize their professional learning in ways that shift beyond that school-year thinking to plan for multi-year initiatives that support the growth of teachers over many years, with the hope of continuity of learning with known colleagues to allow those relationships to deepen. Recognizing that teacher change-over in all schools is a reality, there does need to be room for flexibility in all plans in relation to who might make up the learning communities, but the structures, supports, and resources for these communities could be planned as a multi-year engagement allowing for continuity and a sense of building relational learning over time. In terms of community building, it is necessary to consider continuity in order to build 221 trust in others (Cherkowski et al., 2018) and allow for a safe, comfortable space to take risks in practice. Shifting how we think about community away from a noun toward more of a verb means that community is seen as an ongoing process of making, one that always evolving and requiring constant attention (Macintyre Latta et al., 2017). In this way, continuity is important for allowing community to evolve into becoming deeper and deeper learning relationships. This does not mean that there will not be changes, challenges, conflicts or disruptions in a community. It means an awareness of the ebb and flow of learning in relation to others as an expected aspect of learning in community (Thayer-Bacon, 2010), a welcomed part of the habit of being in community with others, leaving room for learning to look differently for everyone involved (Hansen, 2011). Focusing on building caring relationships among teachers as an essential foundation for growing their learning is a new way to think about learning communities, one that recognizes that connecting with others in caring ways is a human need, we need to connect with others in a way that is caring, positive, fun, and creates a sense of well-being (Cherkowski et al., 2018). Wholistic professional learning is a perspective that offers new ways of thinking about and seeing how and why teachers may come together to learn about and grow their teaching. Creating a culture of caring through building wholistic professional learning in community will, undoubtedly, have a positive impact on the culture of the school (Noddings, 2013) and the learning for the students. However, it is also important to consider the impact of prioritizing the importance of creating conditions for caring relationships for teachers as people, not only as professionals. Focusing on caring relationships reflects the important valuing of the human need to care for others and be cared for, to feel safe, happy, and fulfilled. These relationships take time to develop and need encouragement and modeling to grow. I recommend professional learning 222 leaders organize learning opportunities that create space and provide resources for teachers to build learning relationships with their colleague, to learn to open classroom doors to their colleagues for their feedback and to learn from each other; contributing to making the traditionally isolated practice of teaching more open, inclusive, and inviting to colleagues. 3. Creating the time and space for teachers to theorize. Shifting how we conceptualize the role of a teacher to a professional who has the capacity to theorize may aid in creating the space for ongoing theory development as an important part of what it means for teachers to engage in professional learning. If we make theory development an essential part of the role of a teacher, we may begin to close the theory-practice gap and reinforce the significance of theory building as a way to engage in the practice of teaching (Hanifi, 2010). When we allow the time and space for teachers to theorize, test out theories in practice, share with others and build expertise, we are essentially enhancing and growing the role of the teacher. Adapting our vision of the role of a teacher toward theory developer may take some time, but I suggest professional learning leaders can begin by creating opportunities for teachers to dialogue with one another around their emerging theories in ongoing ways, where they can come back to their learning community again and again to continuously build on what they are learning together in more complex ways. 4. Focus on learning as wholistically attending to the mind and the heart. Understanding the nature of relational learning is an important part of engaging in the ongoing practices of learning together. Teachers, and those who work with them to develop and support professional learning, would benefit from learning about both the intellectual and the affective nature of relational learning and how to support other adults to engage in and grow the kinds of relationships that foster and sustain deeper learning. By making relational learning 223 visible and inviting teachers to be a part of the planning, organizing, implementing and reflecting part of wholistic professional learning initiatives, teachers may feel more ownership for growing a fuller and deeper sense of their learning and see how to make it more meaningful (Guskey, 2002; Whitehouse, 2010). Making visible what it means to engage in professional learning from a wholistic perspective opens the space for discussions about how to create conditions for learning as a full and whole experience, engaging and attending to mind and heart in connection with others. Involving teachers in organizing their own professional learning can offer opportunities for them to meet their learning needs as a person and a professional. In addition to the practitioner recommendations outlined above for designing and implementing professional learning opportunities for teachers, I suggest further research on teachers’ experiences of professional learning from a relational learning perspective. Given the lack of continuity in many professional learning initiatives, more research is needed to better understand how to structure PLCs over a longer period of time to build and strengthen relationships in ways that promote intellectual, social, and emotional growth and learning. Additionally, the membership in the learning community in this study did not shift and change much throughout the study, lending to much continuity and stability. However, given the increasingly rapid and constant rates of change in the educational landscape, more research is needed to understand how to create conditions for relational learning that maintains an openness to new members while building the relationships of those who do remain in the learning community in multi-year learning communities. It is apparent through this study that it is necessary to have the time and space for the framework of a PLC to be flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of the teachers involved. Further research could illuminate the extent to which PLCs thrive with the presence of a relational leader and if that presence allows for teachers 224 within community to experience deep learning with and from others. Finally, the intent of professional learning for teachers is to improve student learning, and so more research is needed to determine the connection between relational learning in PLCs and student learning experiences. 6.13 Limitations As described, my role as an insider in this school district and in this particular initiative set limitations in this study, due to researcher subjectivity and potential bias. Although the trusting relationship may have allowed participants to further disclose during the interviews, the relationship may have distorted the information the participants chose to share. Further, as I engaged with the reading and interpreting of the data in the transcripts, I had to ensure a high level of reflexivity to pay attention and make explicit which lens I may be using to make sense of the stories. The ways I interpreted the data may have influenced how I described my understandings (Richards & Morse, 2013). Another limitation of this study is the small number of participants and the potential learning nature of this select group. The teachers who volunteered to participate in this study had already volunteered to be part of the CR4YR initiative, indicating that they likely had a desire to learn how to grow and improve their teaching through collective inquiry. This initial group of teachers is not necessarily a representative sample of teachers across the whole district. Addditionally, the participants who did volunteer to be in my study likely felt comfortable with me and with sharing their views in front of their colleagues as part of the focus groups. The ten teachers were keen to share their thoughts and experiences with me; however, at least two other potential participants did not participate in this full study, which indicates a potential limitation of those who were interested in expressing their 225 thoughts, experiences, and challenges about their learning. The participants in this study were highly committed to furthering their knowledge of early reading pedagogy and wanted to continue their learning over the course of two years; whereas, teachers who did not participate for two years were not asked to participate. There were teachers who may not have found the CR4YR learning opportunity to be beneficial and did not volunteer to participate in this study, or did not choose to participate in the CR4YR initiative for two years. An additional limitation is my use of an appreciative lens during the analysis of the data as I explored what it meant to these teachers to experience relationships in their learning community. As I analyzed and interpreted the experiences of the participants I tended to focus on their growth, rather than their inadequacies. This was important to me as a researcher as teachers were sharing their vulnerabilities in a safe space and I felt it important for me to honour each of them as being unique human beings. As with much qualitative case study research, while the findings from this study are not be generalizable beyond the context of this particular case (Merriam, 1988), understandings and themes gleaned from this study may provide insights that others may use to make greater sense of how teachers’ can experience meaningful professional learning in their own school settings; the findings and discussion from this study have been presented within these stated limitations. 6.14 Researcher Reflections As I come to the end of this study, I reflect on my own learning journey as a teacher and as a researcher. This study not only informed how I continue to work and learn in relation to my colleagues through professional learning, but also brought about a sense of self-identity as I developed and re-developed who I am as a researcher and a professional learner as I engaged in learning with and from the participants in this study. As I merged theory and practice throughout 226 this study, I did so alongside my colleagues and had the unique opportunity to hear their stories and witness their relationship building and growth of knowledge and practice. As they theorized, so did I. Among many other significant areas of learning, I would like to highlight how my perspective of the role of a teacher was strengthened. My level of respect and awe for the important work teachers do on a daily basis was acknowledged and deepened through this study. I was continually inspired by how teachers’ motivation and enthusiasm is contagious, with their students, their colleagues, and the larger educational community. I learned about the impact of empowerment, collective and individual, to the community as a whole and how we need to continue to develop our voices. My fondest hope is that this study will contribute to the elevation of the role of a teacher to one of deep admiration and value. 6.15 Conclusion Through this study I have provided insight into teacher professional learning through a relational learning perspective, offering a conceptualization of wholistic learning that is meaningful, impactful, and relevant to teachers. To summarize, teacher engagement in professional learning happens when interacting with others in ways that develop relationships that opens spaces for intellectual, emotional, and social learning and growth. Specifically, when teachers are engaged in teacher-directed, job-embedded, inquiry-focused, collaborative professional learning that allows teachers to develop rich relationships over time, they can come to develop capacities and habits for theorizing their teaching and learning that can lead to an increase in confidence and a sense of empowerment as they notice their ability to work together to wrestle with the challenges and complexities in their classrooms. This dissertation provides an illustrative example of teachers experiences within a PLC that highlights how teachers can 227 benefit and grow in their teaching and learning when they can develop relationships with each other that promote and support who they are as teachers and encourages them to delve deeper into inquiry about their practice. In addition, this dissertation sets the stage for future studies in professional learning from the perspective of relational learning. Findings from this research suggest that inquiry-oriented, collaborative professional learning opportunities, such as those experienced in the CR4YR model, that focus on relationships between and among teachers hold promise for deep learning over time and may increase teachers’ confidence and competence when they are afforded the time and space to learn to theorize with each other about their teaching and learning. When professional learning is designed to meet the needs of teachers through a framework which allows interdependence to grow and relationships to deepen, the co-creation of knowledge is a possible and hopeful outcome. Relational leaders offer ways to create conditions for caring relationships to develop and flourish over time. Greater importance needs to be attached to understanding professional learning from a wholistic perspective, attending to the mind and heart of professional learning in ways that values, honours, and encourages teachers to connect with each other to grow community as they build and grow their practice. 228 References Ahmed Hersi, A., Horan, D. A., & Lewis, M. A. (2016). Redefining "community" through collaboration and co-teaching: A case study of an ESOL specialist, a literacy specialist, and a fifth-grade teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(8), 927-946. Ahn, J. (2017). Taking a step to identify how to create professional learning communities – Report of a case study of a Korean public high school on how to create and sustain a school-based teacher professional learning community. International Education Studies, 10(1), 82-92. Asher, A. & Nicolas, J.D. (2016). Collaboration around facilitating emergent literacy: Role of occupational therapy. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools & Early Intervention, 9(1), 51-73. Baker, J.A. & Bloom, G.S. (2017). Growing support for principals: Principal supervisors collaborate and problem solve in learning communities. Learning Professional, 38(2), 61-65. Barden, J. & Mitchell, W. (2007). Disentangling the influences of leaders’ relational embeddedness on interorganizational exchange. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1440-1461. Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (6th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson. Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York, NY: Routledge. Bianco, M. W., 1881-1944. (2003). The Velveteen Rabbit: or How Toys Become Real. Leesburg, VA: GiGi Books. Biesta, G. (2004). “Mind the gap!” Communication and the educational relation. In C. 229 Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp. 11-22), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Bloomberg, L. & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map From Beginning to End (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Blossing, U. & Liljenberg, M. (2019). School leaders’ relational and management work orientation. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(2), 276-286. Bogler, R., and Somech, A., 2004. Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 277–289. Bolhuis, E. D., Schildkamp, K., & Voogt, J. M. (2016). Improving teacher education in the Netherlands: Data team as learning team? European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 320-339. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. British Columbia Teachers Federation. (n.d.) 2014 Strike and Lockout. Retrieved from https://bctf.ca/history/rooms/BargainingDetail.aspx?id=39526 British Columbia Teachers Federation. (2010). Backgrounder: Purpose for professional development. http://bctf.ca/professionaldevelopment.aspx July, 2010. Brodie, K. (2013). The power of professional learning communities. Education as Change, 17(1), 5-18. Brown, B. (2010). The Gifts of Imperfection. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Brown, G. (2016). Leadership's influence: A case study of an elementary principal's "indirect" impact on student achievement. Education, 137(1), 101-115. 230 Brown, S., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., & Steffensen, K. (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in British Columbia. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Brownlee, J. & Berthelsen, D. (2008). Developing relational epistemology through relational pedagogy: New ways of thinking about personal epistemology in teacher education. In M.S. Khine (ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies across Diverse Cultures (pp. 405-422). New York, NY: Springer. Brownlie, F. & Schnellert, L. (2009). It’s All About Thinking: Collaborating to Support All Learners. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Bruner, J. (2006). In Search of Pedagogy Volume I: The Selected Works of Jerome Bruner, 1957 1978. New York, NY: Routledge. Bullough, R. V. (1997). Becoming a teacher: Self and the social location of teacher education. In International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 79-134). Springer, Dordrecht. Burke, A. & Collier, D. (2017). ‘I was kind of teaching myself’: Teachers’ conversations about social justice and teaching for change. Teacher Development, 21(2), 269-287. Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development. Teaching and teacher education, 28(8), 1206-1220. Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., & Hobbs-Johnson, A. (with Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K.). (2016). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Carpenter, D. (2017). Collaborative inquiry and the shared workspace of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(7), 1069-1091. Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682-694. 231 Carpenter, J. & Krutka, D. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414-434. Chang, C. & Johnson, R. (2010). Not all leader – member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational identity. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 798-808. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chauraya, M., & Brodie, K. (2017). Learning in professional learning communities: Shifts in mathematics teachers' practices. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(3), 223-233. Chen, P. & Wang, T. (2015). Exploring the evolution of a teacher professional learning community: A longitudinal case study at a Taiwanese high school. Teacher Development, 19(4), 427-444. Cherkowski, S., Hanson, K., & Walker, K. (2018). Mindful Alignment: Foundations of Educator Flourishing. Lexington Books. Cherkowski, S., & Schnellert, L. (2018). Teacher, team, and school change through reciprocal learning. Teacher Development, 22(2), 229-248. Cherkowski, S., & Schnellert, L. (2017). Exploring Teacher Leadership in a Rural, Secondary School: Reciprocal Learning Teams as a Catalyst for Emergent Leadership. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8(1). Cherrington, S. & Thornton, K. (2015). The nature of professional learning communities in New Zealand early childhood education: an exploratory study. Professional Development in Education, 41(2), 310-328. Chestnut, C. (2015). “But I’m a language teacher!” Dual immersion teacher identities in a 232 complex policy context. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(4), 339-362. Choi Fung Tam, A. (2015a). Exploring teachers’ beliefs about teacher learning in professional learning communities and their influence on collegial activities in two departments. Compare, 45(3), 422-444. Choi Fung Tam, A. (2015b). The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: A perspective from beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 21(1), 22-43. Christ, T., Arya, P., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). Video use in teacher education: An international survey of practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 22-35. Christman, J. B., Ebby, C. B., & Edmunds, K. A. (2016). Data use practices for improved mathematics teaching and learning: The importance of productive dissonance and recurring feedback cycles. Teachers College Record, 118(11). Clay, M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Education. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and teacher education, 19(1), 5-28. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24(1), 249-305. Cohen, J., Schuldt, L. C., Brown, L., & Grossman, P. (2016). Leveraging observation tools for instructional improvement: Exploring variability in uptake of ambitious instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 118(11). 233 Collins, S., & Ting, H. (2014). The complexity of care. Complicity, 11(1), 5. Cooper, K., Stanulis, R., Brondyk, S… (2016). The teacher leadership process: Attempting change within embedded systems. Journal for Educational Change, 17, 85-113. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Crigger, N. J. (1997). The trouble with caring: A review of eight arguments against an ethic of care. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(4), 217-221. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Crow, G. & Pounder, D. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216-254. Damjanovic, V. & Blank, J. (2018). Building a professional learning community: Teachers’ documentation of and reflections on preschoolers’ work. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46, 567-575. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53. Day, C. (2004). A Passion for Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Day, C., & Lee, J. C. K. (2011). Emotions and educational change: Five key questions. In New Understandings of Teacher's Work (pp. 1-11). Springer, Dordrecht. 234 De Neve, D., & Devos, G. (2017). Psychological states and working conditions buffer beginning teachers’ intention to leave the job. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 6-27. Dee, J., Henkin, A. & Singleton, C. (2006). Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools: Examining the effects of team structures. Urban Education, 41(6), 603-627. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Vol. 2). Sage. DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D. N. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(3), 351-372. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY. Macmillan. Dewey, J. & Rogers, M. (1927/2012). The Public and its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. University Park: Penn State University Press. Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2006(109), 15-26. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IND: National Education Service. DuFour, R., DuFour, R. Eaker, R. & Karhenak R. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IND: National Education Service. Ehman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73(i), 253-265. 235 Eley, A. (2017). Professional learning communities. Primary Science, (148), 5-8. Erdem, F. & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management, 9(5/6), 131-135. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum, 2007. Fresko, B. & Nasser-Abu Alhija, F (2015). Induction seminars as professional learning communities for beginning teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 36-48. Friedrichsen, P. Barnett, E. (2018). Negiotiating the meaning of Next Generation Science Standards in a secondary biology teacher professional learning community. J Res Sci Teach, 55, 999-1025. Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (2016). Bringing the professional back in: Call to action. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Gee, D., & Whaley, J. (2016). Learning together: Practice-centred professional development to enhance mathematics instruction. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 18(1), 87-99. Gillies, A. (2017). Teaching pre-service teachers about belonging. International Journal of Whole Schooling, special issue, 17-25. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press. Goldstein, L. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673. Goodnough, K. (2010). The role of action research in transforming teacher identity: Modes of belonging and ecological perspectives. Educational Action Research, 19(2), 167-182. Gordon, S., Benner, P. E., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1996). Caregiving: Readings in knowledge, 236 practice, ethics, and politics. University of Pennsylvania Press. Grandy, G. (2010). Instrumental case study. Encyclopedia of case study research, 1, 473-475. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 380-391. Halbert, J. & Kaser, L. (2013). Spirals of Inquiry: For Equity and Quality. Vancouver, BC: BC Principals’ & Vice-Principals’ Association. Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., Chua, C. S. K., & Wang, L. Y. (2017). A research agenda for professional learning communities: moving forward. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 72-86. Hairon, S. (2016). Facilitation for professional learning community conversations in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 285-300. Hairon, S., Wee Pin Goh, J. & Siew Kheng Chua, C. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in professional learning community contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163-182. Hallam, P., Smith, H., Hite, J., Hite, S. & Wilcox, B. (2015). Trust and collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193-216. Hands, C., Guzar, K., & Rodrigue, A. (2015). The art and science of leadership in learning environments: Facilitating a professional learning community across districts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 226-242. Hanifi, K. (2010). Teachers as theorists. International Journal of Learning and 237 Change, 4(3), 206-216. Hansen, D. (2011). The Teacher and the World: A Study of Cosmopolitanism as Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Hansen, D. (2010a). Cosmopolitanism and Education: A View from the Ground. Teachers college record, 112(1), 1-30. Hansen, D. (2010b). Chasing butterflies without a net: Interpreting cosmopolitanism. Studies in philosophy and education, 29(2), 151-166. Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503-527. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151-182. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). The ripple effect. Educational leadership, 63(8), 16-20. Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. Learning Forward, 34(3), 36-39. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving schools, 13(2), 172-181. Hoagland, S. L. (1990). Some concerns about Nel Noddings’ caring. Hypatia, 5(1), 109-114. Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D. (2007). Understanding learning cultures. Educational Review, 59(4), 415-427. Hord, S., Roussin, J. & Sommers, W. (2010). Guiding Professional Learning 238 Communities: Inspiration, Challenge, Surprise, and Meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Hostetler, K. (2011). Seducing Souls: Education and the Experience of Well-Being. New York, NY: Continuum. Hou, H. (2015). What makes an online community of practice work? A situated study of Chinese student teachers’ perceptions of online professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 6-16. Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38-49. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372. Huguet, A., Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2017). Light touch, heavy hand: Principals and data use PLCs. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(4), 376-389. Hutchinson, J. (2010). Democracy needs strangers, and we are them. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp.73-91), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Imre, R. J., & Millei, Z. (2009). Smashing Cosmopolitanism: The Neo-Liberal Destruction of Cosmopolitan Education in East-Central Europe. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 12(1), 76-85. Janssen, O. (2004). The barrier effect of conflict with superiors in the relationship between employee empowerment and organizational commitment. Work & Stress, 18(1), 56–65. Jeroski, S. (2015). Impact of changing results for young readers: August 2015. Horizon Research 239 & Evaluation Inc. Johnson, P. & Keier, K. (2010). Catching Readers Before They Fall: Supporting Readers who Struggle. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Johnson, S., Reinhorn, S. K., & Simon, N. S. (2016). Team Work: Time well Spent. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 24-29. Joliffe, W. (2015). Bridging the gap: Teachers cooperating together to implement cooperative learning. Education, 43(1), 70-82. Jumani, N. & Malik, S. (2017). Promoting teachers’ leadership through autonomy and accountability. In I.H. Amzat and N.P. Valdez (eds.), Teacher Empowerment Towards Professional Development and Practices. pp. 21-41. Singapore: Springer. Kalin, J., & Zuljan, M. V. (2007). Teacher perceptions of the goals of effective school reform and their own role in it. Educational Studies, 33(2), 163-175. Katz, J. (2012). Teaching to diversity: The three-block model of universal design for learning. Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press. Keamy, R. (2016). Creative leadership? "it's just the norm". School Leadership & Management, 36(2), 151-168. Kelly, J. & Cherkowski, S. (2015). Collaboration, collegiality, and collective reflection: A case study of professional development for teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 169, 1-27. Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: learning as practice. Teaching and teacher education, 18(3), 229-241. Koczanowicz, L. (2010). Cosmopolitanism and its Predicaments. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(2), 141-149. 240 Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the idea of Justice. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Kooy, M. (2015). Building a teacher-student community through collaborative teaching and learning: Engaging the most affected and least consulted. Teacher Development, 19(2), 187-209. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston. Google Scholar. Kropiewnicki, M. I., & Shapiro, J. P. (2001). Female Leadership and the Ethic of Care: Three Case Studies. Lai, M., Lim, C., & Wang, L. (2016). Potential of digital teaching portfolios for establishing a professional learning community in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 1-14. LeChasseur, K., Mayer, A., Welton, A., & Donaldson, M. (2016). Situating teacher inquiry: A micropolitical perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 255-274. Lederman, L. C. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group interview as a technique for data collection. Communication Education, 39(2), 117-127. Le Fevre, D.M., Timperley, H. & Ell, F. (2015). Curriculum and pedagogy – the future of teacher professional learning and the development of adaptive expertise. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward & J. Z. Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 309-324). London: SAGE reference. Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 109-130. 241 Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 591. Lieberman, A. & Mace, D. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 77-88. Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S. & Guba, E. (2013). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contractions, and Emerging Confluences, Revisited. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds., pp. 199-236). The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American educational research journal, 19(3), 325-340. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Macdonald, E. & Shirley, D. (2009). The Mindful Teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Macintyre Latta, M. (2013). Curricular Conversations: Play is the (Missing) Thing. New York, NY: Routledge. Macintyre Latta, M., Schnellert, L., Ondrik, K. & Sasges, M. (2017). The inspirited nature of mindful curricular enactment’s community (re)making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 255-272. McGee, A., & Lawrence, A. (2009). Teacher educators inquiring into their own practice. Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 139-157. McGregor, C. (2014). Disrupting colonial mindsets: The power of learning networks. In Education, 19(3), 89-107. Margalef, L., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2016). Unpacking the roles of the facilitator in higher 242 education professional learning communities. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3), 155-172. Marsh, J. A., Bertrand, M., & Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 117(4). Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370. Mayo, C. (2010). Relations are difficult. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp.121-137), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Margonis, F. (2010). From student resistance to educative engagement: Powerful student-teacher relationships. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp. 11-22), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. McDaniel, B. (2010). Between strangers and soul mates: Care and moral dialogue. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp. 91-103), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Huberman, M. A., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage. Miller, J. (1998). Making connections through holistic learning. Educational Leadership, 56(4), 243 46-48. Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35. Ministry of Education (2015). Introduction to British Columbia’s Redesigned Curriculum. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/pdf/curriculum_intro.pdf Mintrop, R., & Charles, J. (2017). The formation of teacher work teams under adverse conditions: Towards a more realistic scenario for schools in distress. Journal of educational change, 18(1), 49-75. Mitchell, C. & Sackney, L. (2011). Profound Improvement: Building Learning Community Capacity on Living-Systems Principles. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge. Mitchell, C. & Sackney, L. (2009). Sustainable Improvement: Building learning communities that endure. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Mockler, N. (2013). The slippery slope to efficiency? An Australian perspective on school/university partnerships for teacher professional learning. Cambridge journal of education, 43(3), 273-289. Mockler, N., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2015). Seeking for the unwelcome truths: Beyond celebration in inquiry-based teacher professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 21(5), 603-614. Moll, L.C. (2013). L.S. Vygotsky and Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Moore, B. (2018). Developing special educator cultural awareness through critically reflective professional learning community collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(3), 243-253. 244 Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H. & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and Professional Improvement, 25(2), 231-256. Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89. Myers, E. L. (2013). A case study of a male school principal's leadership practices: An exploration of emotion & the ethic of care (Order No. 3552346). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1294926497). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1294926497?accountid=14656 Ndunda, M., Van Sickle, M., Perry, L., & Capelloni, A. (2017). University− Urban High School Partnership: Math and Science Professional Learning Communities. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3-4), 137-145. Newberry, M., Sanchez, L. & Clark, S. (2018). Interactional dimensions of teacher change: A case study of the evolution of professional and personal relationships. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall, 29-50. Ngalawa, A., Simmt, E., & Glanfield, F. (2015). Exploring the emergence of community support for school and encouragement of innovation for improving rural school performance: Lessons learned at Kitamburo in Tanzania. Global Education Review, 2(4), 101-125. Nicholson, J., Capitelli, S., Richert, A., Bauer, A. & Bonetti, S. (2016). The affordances of using a teacher leadership network to support leadership development. Teacher Education Quarterly, winter, 29-50. 245 Ning, H. K., Lee, D., & Lee, W. O. (2015). Relationships between teacher value orientations, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 337-354. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (2nd ed.). Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771 781. Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and Education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ning, H., Lee, D. & Lee, W. (2015). Relationships between teacher value orientations, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Soc Psychol Educ, 18, 337-354. OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en O’Donoghue, T. (2007). Planning Your Qualitative Research Project: An Introduction to Interpretivist Research in Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Oldfather, P. & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 26(2), 139-158. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of educational research, 81(3), 376-407. Owen, S. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion, and nurturing teacher wellbeing and "flourishing" within significantly innovative schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 403-419. Owen, S. (2015). Teacher professional learning communities in innovative contexts: ‘ah hah 246 moments’, ‘passion’ and ‘making a difference’ for student learning. Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 57-74. Owens, L. M., & Ennis, C. D. (2005). The ethic of care in teaching: An overview of supportive literature. Quest, 57(4), 392-425. Palmer, P. (2007). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life (10th anniversary ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. (1993). To know as we are known: A spirituality of education. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins. Papastephanou, M. (2002). Arrows not yet fired: Cultivating cosmopolitanism through education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(1), 69-86. Park, S., Henkin, A. & Egley, R. (2005). Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust: Exploring associations. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 462-479. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Phusavat, K. P., Delahunty, D., Kess, P., & Kropsu-Vehkapera, H. (2017). Professional/Peer learning community: Impacts on workplace training at Bangkok metropolitan administration (BMA) schools. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29(6), 406-427. Pinar, W. (2009). The Worldliness of a Cosmopolitan Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Poole, M., & Isaacs, D. (1997, July). Caring: A gendered concept. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 529-536). Pergamon. Pounder, D. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317-348. Province of British Columbia. (2012). Minister’s statement on BCTF strike. Retrieved from 247 https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/ministers-statement-on-bctf-strike Psiropoulos, D., Barr, S., Eriksson, C., Fletcher, S., Hargis, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2016). Professional development for iPad integration in general education: Staying ahead of the curve. Education and Information Technologies, 21(1), 209-228. Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Qiao, X., & Yu, S. (2016). Enhancing professional learning communities through knowledge artefacts in mainland china. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 42(1), 110-113. Reed, L. C., & Swaminathan, R. (2016). An urban school leader's approach to school improvement: Toward contextually responsive leadership. Urban Education, 51(9), 1096-1125. Reeves, J. (2010). Professional Learning as Relational Practice. New York, NY: Springer. Richards, L. & Morse, L. (2013). Readme First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications. Richardson, L. (2000). New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of sport journal, 17(1), 5-20. Rigelman, N. & Ruben, B. (2012). Creating foundations for collaboration in schools: Utilizing professional learning communities to support teacher candidate learning and visions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 979-989. Saldana, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Schapp, H. & Bruijn, E. (2018). Elements affecting the development of professional learning 248 communities in schools. Learning Environ Res, 21, 109-134. Schnellert, L., Kozak, D., & Moore, S. (2015). Professional development that positions teachers as inquirers and possibilizers. LEARNing landscapes, 9(1), 217-236. Schwandt, T. (1998). The interpretive review of education matters: Is there any other kind? Review of Educational Research, 68(4), 409-412. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building Communities in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher education quarterly, 35(1), 63-77. Sims, R. L., & Penny, G. R. (2015). Examination of a failed professional learning community. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 39-45. Sindberg, L. K. (2016). Elements of a successful professional learning community for music teachers using comprehensive musicianship through performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 202-219. Short, P. M., & Greer, J. T. (1997). Leadership in Empowered Schools. New Jersey: Merrill. Skaalvik, E. & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1029-1038. Smith, E., & Greyling, A. (2006). Empowerment perceptions of educational managers from previously disadvantaged primary and high schools: An explorative study. South African Journal of Education, EASA 26(4), 595–607. Smith, R. & Starmer, L. (2017). Building adaptive expertise: Professional learning that works with teachers, not on them. Australian Council for Educational Leaders, 39(4). Soslau, E. G. (2015). Exploring intersubjectivity between student teachers and field instructors in 249 student teaching conferences. Cogent Education, 2(1). Sperandio, J. & Kong, P. (2018). Forging professional learning communities: The role of external agency. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(1), 80-94. Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational administration quarterly, 27(2), 185-202. Stefkovich, J. A., & Shapiro, J. P. (2003). Deconstructing communities: Educational leaders and their ethical decision-making processes. In The ethical dimensions of school leadership (pp. 89-106). Springer, Dordrecht. Stige, B., Malterud, K., & Midtgarden, T. (2009). Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(10), 1504-1516. Squire-Kelly, V. D. (2012). The relationship between teacher empowerment and student achievement. Electronic Theses & Dissertations. Paper 406. http://digitalcommons. georgiasouthern.edu/etd/406 Stake, R. E. (2000). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In Evaluation models (pp. 343-362). Netherlands: Springer. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Steeg, S. M. (2016). A Case Study of Teacher Reflection: Examining Teacher Participation in a Video-Based Professional Learning Community. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 12(1), 122-141. Steffy, B. & Wolfe, M. (2001). A life-cycle model for career teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(1), 16-19. Stengal, B. (2010). Knowing is response-able relation. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (Eds., pp.139-153), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. 250 Stoll, L. & Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Professional learning communities: elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll and K. Seashore Louis’ Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas, pp. 1-14. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Sun, M., Loeb, S., & Grissom, J. A. (2017). Building teacher teams: Evidence of positive spillovers from more effective colleagues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 104-125. Talbert, J. & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123-153. Tam, V., Chan, J., Li, S. & Pow, J. (2018). Developing and managing school human capital for information and communication technology integration: A case study of a school-based elearning project in Hong Kong. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), 447-461. Tan, Y. S. M., & Caleon, I. S. (2016). Problem finding in professional learning communities: A learning study approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(2), 127-146. Tannehill, D. & MacPhail, A. (2017). Teacher empowerment through engagement in a learning community in Ireland: Working across disadvantaged schools. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 334-352. Thayer-Bacon, B. (2010). Personal and social relations in education. In C. Bingham & A. Sidorkin (eds.), No Education Without Relation. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2004). Personal and social relations in education. Counterpoints, 259, 165 179. 251 Thayer-Bacon, B. (2003). Pragmatism and feminism as qualified relativism. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(6), 417-438. Thayer‐Bacon, B. J. (1997). The nurturing of a relational epistemology. Educational theory, 47(2), 239-260. Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2) 237-246. Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Tran, L., & Nguyen, N. (2013). Mediating teacher professional identity: The emergence of humanness and ethical identity. International Journal of Training Research, 11(3), 199-212. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247. Tsui, A. (2009). Distinctive qualities of expert teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 15(4), 421-439. Van Manen, M. (1994). Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching. Curriculum inquiry, 24(2), 135-170. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., & Raes, E. (2016). Team learning in teacher teams: Team entitativity as a bridge between teams-in-theory and teams-in-practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(3), 275-298. Vendenberg, D. (1996). Caring: Feminine ethics or materialistic misandry? A hermeneutical critique of Nel Noddings’ phenomenology of the moral subject and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 30(2), 253-269. Vescio, V., Ross, D & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional 252 learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 24, 80-91. Vygotsky, L. (1934). 1986. Thought and language. Trans. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, 5291, 157. Waghid, Y., & Smeyers, P. (2010). On doing justice to cosmopolitan values and the otherness of the other: Living with cosmopolitan scepticism. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(2), 197-211. Walker, K. (2007). The Ebb, Flow and Ecology of Team. D. McIntire (Ed.). Teamwork: Making the Dream Work. Indianapolis, Indiana: Precedent Press. pp. 45-70. Walton, E., Nel, N.M., Muller, H. & Lebeloane, O. (2014). ‘You can train us until we are blue in our faces, we are still going to struggle’: Teacher professional learning in a full-service school, Education as Change, 18(2), 319-333. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (1998). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145. Whitehouse, P. (2010). Making Teacher Learning Visible. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4137-4143). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Williams, J., Ritter, J. & Bullock, S. (2012). Understanding the complexity of becoming a 253 teacher educator: Experience, belonging, and practice within a professional learning community. Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 245-260. Wilson, S. (1979). Explorations of the usefulness of case study evaluations. Evaluation Quarterly, 3(3), 446-459. Zhang, J., Yuan, R., & Yu, S. (2017). What impedes the development of professional learning communities in China? Perceptions from leaders and frontline teachers in three schools in Shanghai. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 219-237. 254 Appendices Appendix A: Consent Form Project Title: Learning Communities: Strengthening Learning Conversations Principal Investigator: Dr. Sabre Cherkowski, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Faculty of Education, sabre.cherkowski@ubc.ca, 250.807.9306 Co-Investigator(s): Jennifer Kelly, Researcher, 250.517.0137 Please read this recruitment and consent form carefully before signing. 1.INTRODUCTION A learning community (LC) is an innovative model of professional development which focuses on the importance of collaborative dialogue and reflective practice. As a way of developing my knowledge and practice of collaborative professional development for educators, I have designed a study that explores the effectiveness of participating in a LC with classroom teachers and intervention teachers. I am a participant-researcher in this learning community. Dr. Cherkowski will guide and support this study. As a current participant in the LC with a literacy focus on best practices for at-risk students, you are invited to take part in the research aspect of this project. 2. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you choose not to participate, there will be no consequences to your ongoing participation as a LC member. Before you decide, it is important for you to understand what the research involves. You will be asked to sign a consent form and commit to sharing data (reflective writing and individual interview) about your experiences as a member of the collaborative environment LC. 255 3.WHO IS CONDUCTING THE STUDY? This research project is being conducted by Jennifer Kelly, MA and Dr. Sabre Cherkowski. Jennifer Kelly and Dr. Cherkowski plan to collect data from participants in the LC and determine if this is an effective approach to professional development and collaborative conversations. Dr. Cherkowski is an assistant professor at UBCO in the faculty of education. Her research encompasses the implementation of learning communities and the effectiveness of this type of professional development. Jennifer Kelly will be completing the majority of the data collection, and both researchers will be analyzing the data and drawing conclusions together. There is no financial compensation from any funding agency for any part of this study. 4. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY? The purpose of this action research is to determine the effectiveness of participating in a LC with classroom teachers and intervention teachers. The LC in this study will be analyzed and determined effective based on the following criteria extrapolated from Mitchell & Sackney (2009). Further research will determine if the results are sustainable. Criteria for effective LCs: a. reflective thinking and dialogue b. use of collaborative work strategies c. emergence of authentic curricula d. use of assessment for learning e. interdependence and collective responsibility This research will further develop my studies in the area of collaborative professional development. In addition, through journal articles and professional development sessions, this study will add to the knowledge about professional development among teachers particularly the collaboration between classroom teachers and intervention teachers in a LC environment. 5. WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY? Participants will be classroom teachers, learning resource teachers, literacy intervention teachers, as well as administrators that have a classroom component to their administration position who are currently involved as members of the collaborative environment LC. 6. WHAT DOES THE STUDY INVOLVE? This study involves sharing data from your experiences participating in a collaborative environment LC throughout the 2012/2013 school year. As part of the research, there will be a reflective writing requirement at the end of each LC meeting, for approximately fifteen (15) minutes. Given the goal of LC’s and the consistent reflective dialogue which is inherent, participants will most likely converse with members of the LC throughout the school year in between the collaborative meetings. One individual interview with each participant (30 minutes) will take place in the month of May, 2013. Interviews will be audio-taped. You will be asked to read a transcript of your research contributions and to sign a transcript release form at a final meeting (30 minutes) June 2013. Overview of the Study 256 I am available to talk with you about this study and the consent process either by e-mail or by telephone. If you are interested in participating, you will be asked to sign this letter of consent before the next LC meeting. I will bring copies of the letter of consent to the next meeting. The LC is being developed by the community participants with a shared understanding of the expectations for respectful collaboration among all members. Based on the collaborative planning model we are focusing on a shared vision or goal we will be working towards. Our goals may change and expand as we grow throughout the year, which is a strong component of LCs and completely encouraged. There will be a reflective component necessary for individual growth and introspective development. Through reflective writing samples and an individual interview, we hope to learn about the effectiveness of the LC through your experiences as a participant in the LC. 7. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY? Key benefits of participating in a learning community are: • Collaborative planning with colleagues • Time to reflect on learning and adapt lessons based on students’ needs • Professional development that is personally meaningful to each individual • Consistent growth that is relevant in your “real world classroom” There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. 8.WHAT HAPPENS IF I DECIDE TO WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE? Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you do not wish to participate, there will be no consequences to your participation as an ongoing member of the LC. You may withdraw from this study at any time. If you decide to enter the study and to withdraw at any time in the future, there will be no penalty or negative outcome to you. If you choose to enter the study and then decide to withdraw at a later time, all data collected during your enrolment in the study may be retained for analysis. This data will be kept in a protected environment and only used for research purposes. 9. AFTER THE STUDY IS FINISHED I will share with the participants a general summary of the findings and any specific publications or papers after the study is finished. All data will be kept in a locked cabinet in the principal researcher’s office at the University of British Columbia. All data will be erased and destroyed no longer than five (5) years following the completion of this study. 10. WHAT WILL THE STUDY COST ME? You will not be paid for participating in this study. There are no expenses to you for participating in this study. 11. WILL MY TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL? 257 Your confidentiality will be respected. I will be reflecting on the progression of the LC throughout the year and the participants’ growth in their specified area of interest, but each participant’s identity will not be disclosed in the study. All data collected will be coded and pseudonyms will be used for all written descriptions and reporting of the data. 12. WHO DO I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY DURING MY PARTICIPATION? If you have any questions or desire further information about this study before or during participation, you can contact Jennifer Kelly at 250.517.0137 (cell) or via email: jkelly@sd83.bc.ca 13. WHO DO I CONTACT IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT MY RIGHTS AS A SUBJECT DURING THE STUDY? If you have concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 1-877-822-8598. 258 Consent: In addition to reflective writing component at the end of each of the LC meetings, participants will be asked to participate in one individual interview (up to 30 minutes) at the end of the study. Participants will be asked to read a transcription of their interview and reflections and will be asked to sign a transcript release form at a final meeting at the end of the study (up to 30 minutes). In accepting to participate in this research project it must be stressed that: 1. confidentiality will be strictly maintained using pseudonyms and paraphrasing; 2. you may refuse to participate or may withdraw at any time from the research project without any consequences. If you choose to enter the study and then decide to withdraw at a later time, all data collected during your enrolment in the study may be retained for analysis. This data will be kept in a protected environment and only used for research purposes. 3. at any stage of your involvement you may request clarification on any issue regarding the project; 4. this study will not involve any risk of any kind whatsoever to you or your work. I, (PRINT) ……………………………………………………, have read this Consent Form and have had the opportunity to discuss in full the nature of this project. I understand that this research component will be completed as unobtrusively as possible and in consultation with me. I give my consent to participate in this project and acknowledge receipt of a copy of this document. ………………………………………… …………………………………… Signed Dated 259 Appendix B: Consent Form Project Title: Learning Communities: Strengthening Learning Conversations Principal Investigator: Dr. Sabre Cherkowski, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Faculty of Education, sabre.cherkowski@ubc.ca, 250.807.9306 Co-Investigator: Jennifer Kelly, Graduate Student, 250.804.9157 1. INTRODUCTION A learning community (LC) is an innovative model of professional development which focuses on the importance of collaborative dialogue and reflective practice. As a way of developing my knowledge and practice of collaborative professional development for educators, I designed a study that explored the effectiveness of participating in a LC with classroom teachers and intervention teachers. You were a participant in this study. I am researching how to engage teachers in meaningful and sustainable professional learning within collaborative professional development structures such as the LC initiative in which you were a participant. As a past participant in the LC with a literacy focus on best practices for at-risk students, you are invited to take part in the next aspect of this project. I will be using the data from all of this research for my doctoral dissertation and any research articles and/or reports that may emerge from this dissertation. Dr. Cherkowski is currently my supervisor for my PhD. 2. YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you choose not to participate, there will be no consequences to you. Before you decide, it is important for you to understand what the research involves. You will be asked to sign a consent form and commit to sharing data from focus group conversations about your experiences as a member of the collaborative environment LC. 3. WHO IS CONDUCTING THE STUDY? This research project is being conducted by Jennifer Kelly, PhD student, guided and supported by her supervisor, Dr. Sabre Cherkowski. Dr. Cherkowski is an associate professor at UBCO in the Faculty of Education. She researches professional learning communities with a focus on professional development for teachers. Jennifer Kelly will be completing the data collection, and will be analyzing the data with the support of Dr. Cherkowski. There is no financial compensation from any funding agency for any part of this study. 4. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY? The purpose of this research is to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of participating in a LC with classroom teachers and intervention teachers. The LC experiences in this study will be analyzed and determined effective and sustainable based on the following criteria extrapolated from Mitchell & Sackney (2009). Criteria for effective LCs: f. reflective thinking and dialogue g. use of collaborative work strategies h. emergence of authentic curricula 260 i. use of assessment for learning j. interdependence and collective responsibility This research will further develop my studies in the area of collaborative professional development and the data will be used for my doctoral dissertation. This study will add to the knowledge about effective and sustainable professional development among teachers, particularly the collaboration between classroom teachers and intervention teachers in a LC environment. 5. WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY? Participants will be past participants of the CR4YR LC initiative. 6. WHAT DOES THE STUDY INVOLVE? This study involves sharing data from your experiences participating in the collaborative environment LC throughout 2012-2015. You will be invited to engage in two focus group conversations with past participants to share your experiences of participating in the learning community, how this experience has impacted your professional learning experiences, and your sense of professional development in relation to your current teaching practice. The focus group conversations will take place in September and November, 2016 and will last up to 60 minutes. The conversations will be audio-recorded and transcribed. You will be asked to read a transcript of the focus group conversation. Overview of the Study I am available to talk with you about this study and the consent process either by e-mail or by telephone. If you are interested in participating, you will be asked to sign this letter of consent before the first focus group conversation. I will bring copies of the letter of consent to the next meeting. 7. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY? Key benefits of participating in the focus group conversations about the learning community experiences are: • Opportunities for collaborative dialogue and interaction with colleagues. • Time to reflect on professional learning and how this influenced and continues to influence your teaching practices. • Reflecting on and sharing about your experiences of professional development (PD) may provide insights for how each individual may encourage and design PD that is more personally meaningful. There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. 8. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DECIDE TO WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE? Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw from this study at any time without penalty. 261 If you consent to being part of the focus group (which means you also consent to having the conversation audio-recorded as part of the focus group participation consent), it will not be possible to withdraw individual data. Therefore, if you choose to enter the study and then decide to withdraw at a later time, all data collected during your enrolment in the study will be retained for analysis. All data will be kept in a protected environment and used for the purposes of developing a doctoral dissertation. 9. AFTER THE STUDY IS FINISHED I will share with the participants a general summary of the findings after the study is finished. All data will be kept in a locked cabinet in the principal researcher’s office at the University of British Columbia for a minimum of five (5) years after publication at which time all data will be erased and destroyed. 10. WHAT WILL THE STUDY COST ME? You will not be paid for participating in this study. There are no expenses to you for participating in this study. 11. WILL MY TAKING PART IN THIS STUDY BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL? If you choose to participate in the focus group(s), anonymity within the focus group will not be ensured since participants will know who else is participating. As a participant you will agree to keep the discussion in the session confidential and to respect the need for confidentiality and anonymity of the other participants outside of the focus group. The data will be used to develop my doctoral dissertation, which is considered a public document and will be available on the Internet via ciRcle (the University of British Columbia's digital repository for research and teaching materials). However, all data collected will be coded and pseudonyms will be used for all written descriptions and reporting of the data. In this way, your confidentiality will be protected in the written reports of this research through the use of a pseudonym. 12. WHO DO I CONTACT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY DURING MY PARTICIPATION? If you have any questions or desire further information about this study before or during participation, you can contact Jennifer Kelly at 250.804.9157 (cell) or via email: jkelly@sd83.bc.ca 13. WHO DO I CONTACT IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT MY RIGHTS AS A SUBJECT DURING THE STUDY? If you have concerns about your rights as a research subject and/or your experiences while participating in this study, you may contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office 262 at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Subject Information Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca). Consent: In this section you are asked to sign indicating your consent to the research activities described in this form. Given the intention to audio-record the focus groups, your consent below indicates that you consent to participate in the focus group conversations and that you consent to the audio-recording of these conversations. My signature below indicates my consent to participate in the focus group conversations and to the audio-recording of these recordings. Participant signature Date Printed name of the participant signing above. 263 Appendix C: Case Study Cover sheet [Electronic version.] School District Teacher name or psuedonym Student code Student name or psuedonym Parent perm. confirmed Yes/No Grade Birthdate (Day/Mo/Yr) Gender M/F ELL/ESL Yes/No Aboriginal Yes/No 1. Why did you/your team choose this student? (point form; key points only) 2a. What do you know about this child’s reading/literacy? (incl. reading/oral performance levels, along with anecdotal comments; please include comments about comprehension/understanding) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2b. What else do you need to find out about the child’s language/literacy/reading in order to create a strong plan for improving the child’s reading/literacy? (please be specific as this will be a key step in your immediate plan) 3a. What strengths, capacities, and/or “passions” do you see in this child? (at least 3) Note: please include strengths from any domain or aspect, including social-emotional; self-regulation; physical/motor; aesthetics; passionate interests; at least one should be directly related to reading/literacy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3b. What questions do you/your team have about this child’s strengths and capacities? What do you need to learn more about, in order to offer powerful support (e.g., social-emotional learning; self-regulation; engagement; interests; relationships; previous experiences …) 4. The child’s voice. Please talk with the child about his/her literacy/reading, and record some of his/her responses. Include direct quotes if you can. (e.g., What do you like about books and stories? What do you think you are good at when it comes to reading/talking/listening? What makes you a good learner? What helps you learn? Consider including other domains, interests, etc.) 264 5. List the first FIVE words or phrases that come to mind when you think about this child today. In doing this, consider the “whole” child – all domains and aspects. Attach any evidence or samples that help to create a picture of the child at this point – but not too many! (Collect less; think more!) Case Study: the Cover Sheet • Filled out during the second meeting by teacher/team • This page is primarily designed to help you (a) plan, (b) track what happens, (c) look back and reflect on changes. • “Baseline” • One per child—if 2-3 of you are working together focusing on the same child, just one cover sheet • You can work on this as a paper document or an electronic document (WORD) during the meeting, but you will be submitting it as an electronic document. • Record just key points – these are modified, ‘mini’ cases – not full case records. Remember that your record will be one of over 200 that we will combine and synthesize – we want your highlights. (One of our mottoes is: Collect less; think more.) • Please keep a copy of the cover sheet for your use and reference throughout the project 265 Appendix D: Case study record of individual actions/results Student code Student name or pseudonym District & School Teacher Date Inquiry question Context: What did you do? (point-form only. If you used specific resources, list them.) Observation. What happened? What did you notice about the child’s reaction and learning (e.g., emotional reaction, engagement; comprehension; metacognition; self-regulation; confidence) React and interpret: What did you and your team learn (a) about working with this child; (b) about teaching and learning generally? Reflect and Plan: What will you and your team do next to support this child? Where appropriate, briefly note the reasons for your choice/decision.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Teacher professional learning : focusing on a wholistic experience linking the mind and the heart through relational learning
Text