The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm
JWL
21,4
276
Received 15 July 2008
Revised 17 October 2008
Accepted 11 November 2008
Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2009
pp. 276-298
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1366-5626
DOI 10.1108/13665620910954193
Experienced teachers’ informal
workplace learning and
perceptions of workplace
conditions
Annemarieke Hoekstra
NAIT Institute of Technology, Edmonton, Canada
Fred Korthagen
VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mieke Brekelmans
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Douwe Beijaard
Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, and
Jeroen Imants
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore in detail how teachers’ perceptions of workplace
conditions for learning are related to their informal workplace learning activities and learning
outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – From a sample of 32 teachers, a purposeful sampling technique
of maximal variation was used to select two cases described in this paper. In a mixed methods design
quantitative data are used to position the two teachers in relation to their peers. Qualitative data are
used to describe the two cases in depth.
Findings – The findings show how the diverging ways in which the two teachers perceive and
actively shape their workplace conditions help to explain differences in the teachers’ learning activities
and learning outcomes.
Originality/value – Scholars have argued that informal workplace learning is embedded in
interdependent practices that arise from the interaction between social practices and individual
agency. The case studies provide insight into how workplace conditions for learning are shaped in this
interaction and how perceptions of these conditions enable or constrain teachers’ informal workplace
learning.
Keywords Workplace learning, Schools, Teachers
Paper type Research paper
The authors would like to thank Inge Bakkenes, Jacobiene Meirink and Rosanne Zwart for their
collaboration on this project. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article.
The research described in this article was funded by The Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO) (project no. 411-01-253).
1. Introduction Informal
Changes in society and educational reforms require from teachers that they keep workplace
adjusting and improving their practice. Also, it is generally acknowledged that
teachers play a key role in implementing educational reforms (Hargreaves et al., 1998). learning
However, teachers only incidentally receive opportunities to engage in ongoing formal
professional development programs. After the induction phase in the early stage of
teachers’ careers, informal workplace learning (i.e. learning without systematic support 277
for learning) is usually the only option for learning (Van Eekelen et al., 2006; Verloop
et al., 2001). Nevertheless, teachers report that even when their learning is not
systematically supported, they learn from all kinds of activities they undertake during
their work (e.g. Dunn and Shriner, 1999; Kwakman, 2003; Lohman, 2006). However, the
question remains what this informal workplace learning looks like and how it is
embedded in teachers’ direct work environment.
Teacher learning has been studied in several different and often unconnected research
traditions. In their review on teacher learning, Richardson and Placier (2001)
distinguished two research traditions: research on individual teacher learning on the
one hand and research on the school as a context for teacher learning on the other hand.
Richardson and Placier (2001) note that these two bodies of literature “largely stand on
their own – almost entirely uninformed by each other” (p. 937). In addition, Hodkinson
and Hodkinson (2005) state that: “there is an extensive literature on teacher development
or continuing professional development, which is paralleled by a long-established
literature on workplace learning, but there has been very limited connection between the
two” (p. 112). In this article we will argue that in both bodies of literature the relations
between informal workplace learning and workplace conditions for learning are not
evident. More specifically, building on insights from the literature on:
.
individual teacher learning;
.
the school as a context for learning; and
.
workplace learning.
This article will further elaborate a conceptual framework of teachers’ informal
workplace learning.
From a larger study into 32 experienced teachers’ informal workplace learning in
the context of an educational reform, we selected case descriptions of two teachers who
considerably differed in their learning activities and outcomes. The aim is to highlight
the relationships between teachers’ informal workplace learning and their perceptions
of the conditions for learning in their direct work environment. The research question
was: “What is the relationship between teachers’ informal workplace learning and their
perception of workplace conditions?”. As such, our research question does not focus on
which conditions influence informal workplace learning, but on how conditions
interact with informal workplace learning. We focus on a number of specific workplace
conditions that the literature shows to be related to teachers’ workplace learning. The
rationale behind the research question is that more insight into teachers’ informal
workplace learning and how this is related to their perceptions of their workplace as a
learning environment will be helpful to create and transform teachers’ workplace
conditions so as to facilitate teachers’ ongoing development. In addition, insights into
the role of learning conditions in their own work environment can assist teachers in
their efforts to keep up to date with changing requirements.
JWL 2. Theoretical framework
21,4 This section is aimed at identifying core constructs from the literature to build a
conceptual framework of informal workplace learning that our study is based on. On
the basis of our overview of the literature a number of gaps are identified that our
study aims to address.

278 2.1 Informal workplace learning

A central notion in theories of workplace learning is the intrinsic and mutual
relationship between working and learning. Workplace learning is defined as changes
in work practices that are mediated through individual learning and organizational
problem-solving processes (Ellström, 2001). In this study, we focus on informal
workplace learning: learning that lacks systematic support explicitly organized to
foster teacher learning. In such an environment, learning is embedded in the work
process and occurs through work activities (Eraut, 2004; Straka, 2004).
Learning can be regarded as an active process, resulting in relatively lasting
changes in behavior or capacities for behavior (Shuell, 1986, 1990). Based on Shuell’s
notion of learning we define teachers’ learning activities as the activities a teacher
undertakes in the workplace that contribute to a change in the teacher’s behavior
and/or cognition (Hoekstra et al., n.d.; Meirink et al., 2009). This means that we also talk
about learning if a teacher changes in beliefs without changing behavior, or vice versa.
Our definition implies that learning does not necessarily mean an improvement in
performance in the eyes of an external observer, but could also involve the
development of what an external assessor would consider inadequate beliefs about
teaching.

2.2 Informal workplace learning: activities and outcomes

Over the past decade, a number of scholars have made inventories of the activities
teachers report to learn from during their work (Dunn and Shriner, 1999; Kwakman,
2003; Lohman and Woolf, 2001; Lohman, 2006; Paredes-Scribner, 1999; Smaller, 2005;
Van Eekelen et al., 2005). On the basis of these studies four major categories of learning
activities can be distinguished:
(1) Learning by experimenting.
(2) Learning by considering own teaching practice.
(3) Learning by getting ideas from others.
(4) Learning by doing (see also Meirink et al., 2007).
Even though these studies provide insight into the kind of activities teachers report to
learn from, they do not give much insight into the mental activities that take place
while teachers undertake these activities.
The mental level of activities has been addressed in studies on student teacher
learning. For instance, Mansvelder-Longayroux et al. (2007) studied student teachers’
learning in their practice schools. In this study, the authors distinguished between
action-oriented and meaning-oriented reflection. Action-oriented reflection is aimed at
improving teaching practices and involves the mental activities recollection and
evaluation. Meaning-oriented reflection is aimed at understanding the teaching and
learning processes underlying the situation, and includes mental activities such as
analysing, critical processing and diagnosis.
 Some recent studies have described teachers’ workplace-learning activities on both Informal
the action level (e.g. trying out new behavior, interaction with a peer) and the mental workplace
level (e.g. reflecting on an experiment, critically diagnosing a situation, deciding to use
a teaching strategy more often) (Hoekstra et al., n.d.; Meirink et al., 2009; Zwart et al., learning
2008). In these studies all learning activities are conceptualized as consisting of an
action component as well as a mental component simultaneously.
Although the number of studies into informal workplace learning activities has 279
significantly increased over the past decade, very few of them are concerned with how
exactly workplace learning activities are related to learning outcomes, such as changes
in teachers’ beliefs over time. As teachers are almost continuously confronted with
educational reforms that require them to change their views of teaching, it is important
to know how certain informal workplace learning activities affect their beliefs. A study
by Meirink et al. (2009) reveals that certain patterns of workplace learning activities
can be related to certain changes in beliefs. For instance: getting a new idea from a
colleague, experimenting with this idea in the classroom and explicitly evaluating the
experiment could be related to teachers becoming more progressive in their teaching
beliefs over the period of a year. A similar sequence of activities that started from
dissatisfaction or negative feelings about the status quo, but also involved
experimentation and evaluation, could be related to teachers becoming more
traditional in their beliefs about teaching. Hoekstra et al. (n.d.) conducted a 14-month
long study of 32 experienced teachers’ informal workplace learning. She found that
after a year, seven teachers had changed in their beliefs congruent with the philosophy
of the reforms required by the government. During that year, these seven teachers had
– significantly more often than the others – experimented in their classrooms, received
new ideas from colleagues, and reflected in a meaning-oriented way. The findings of
Meirink and Hoekstra indicate that both the action level as well as the mental level of
activities and their relation to changes in teachers’ cognition and/or teaching behavior
should be part of our conceptualization of teachers’ informal workplace learning
(Figure 1).

2.3 The relation between informal workplace learning and conditions for learning at
work
As informal workplace learning is embedded in work processes (Straka, 2004; Eraut,
2004), the conditions in the school in which teachers work are expected to affect
teachers’ engagement in workplace learning activities. A number of studies have
addressed this issue. Lohman (2006) for instance, describes that teachers report a lack
of time and a lack of proximity to colleagues’ workspaces as important inhibitors for
informal workplace learning. Other studies into the factors influencing informal

Figure 1.
Conceptualization of
informal workplace
learning
JWL workplace learning point to the importance of collegial availability and support as well
21,4 as the organizational climate (Doornbos et al., 2004; Kwakman, 2003; Van Woerkom
et al., 2002). These studies provide us with important input for conceptualizing
informal workplace learning, based on teachers’ reports of how frequently they engage
in informal workplace learning activities. However, these studies do not attend to the
relation between these activities and the learning outcomes resulting from these
280 activities. In the present study we aim to address how teachers’ informal workplace
activities are related to learning outcomes.
In addition, the studies by Doornbos et al., Kwakman and Van Woerkom are based
on the assumption that context factors influence participation in informal workplace
learning activities in a one-way direction. However, such a one-way relation between
context factors and informal workplace learning is not self-evident (Ellinger, 2005;
Sambrook and Stewart, 2000). In their review study on teacher learning, Richardson
and Placier (2001) conclude:
We found from our review of these studies that the relationship between school contexts and
teacher change is complex and ambiguous (. . .) In some cases, individual teachers change
despite their unsupportive social context, and, in other cases, they do not change, despite
changes in the organization that would support it.
In line with this quote, Lee and Roth (2007) describe the relationship between the
individual and the organization as a mutual relation: “learning individuals make
learning organizations what they are while the latter simultaneously provide necessary
affordances or action possibilities for its members to develop” (p. 93). Billett (2004)
speaks in this respect of an interdependent relationship. The present study aims at
developing more insight into this interdependent relationship between the perceptions
of workplace conditions for learning by teachers on the one hand, and their informal
workplace learning on the other hand.

2.4 Conditions for informal workplace learning in teachers’ direct work environment
In the general literature on the integration of working and learning (Ellström, 2001) and
literature on the school as a context for teacher learning (Imants and Van Veen, n.d.;
Louis et al., 1996; Marks and Louis, 1999; Rosenholtz, 1989; Smylie, 1995; Smylie and
Hart, 1999) we identified five recurring conditions that were of interest for our study:
(1) Teacher autonomy.
(2) Teacher collaboration.
(3) Reflective dialogue.
(4) Receiving feedback.
(5) Experience of shared norms and responsibility within the school.
We chose these conditions because they do not pertain to macro-organizational factors
or management interventions for promoting informal workplace learning (Ashton,
2004; Ellinger and Cseh, 2007; Skule, 2004), but rather apply to socio-cultural practices
in teachers’ daily work environment (as described by Billett, 2004 and Sambrook,
2005). As such, we expected these conditions to be directly connected with teachers’
informal workplace learning activities. The literature does not offer a definite answer
as to whether there might be more of such conditions (a question that was not the focus
of our study), but these five together formed a solid and promising framework for an
in-depth study of our research question, i.e. the question of how teachers’ perceptions of Informal
workplace conditions for learning are related to informal workplace learning. workplace
First, autonomy refers to the degree to which individuals in a social structure
determine their own work methods, schedules, and goals. Perceived autonomy refers to learning
a sense of control over one’s environment. Second, in teacher collaboration the focus is
on the level of interdependency between teachers. The assumption is that higher levels
of interdependence in collaboration promote learning. Through reflective dialogue, 281
teachers engage in conversations aimed at discussing assumptions about teaching and
student learning (Louis et al., 1996). This way reflective dialogue can stimulate teachers
to engage in meaning-oriented reflection. Meaning-oriented reflection can also be
promoted by input from external resources (Day, 1999). Such input can be generated by
feedback. For example, teachers may ask each other or their students for feedback
about the quality of their work and the impact it has on student learning. Formal
feedback can be derived from the monitoring of students’ results and by means of
student surveys. Finally, experience of shared norms and responsibility pertain to the
extent to which teachers experience agreement on what good teaching and learning is,
and teachers’ experience that they share the responsibility to achieve educational goals
with others in the school. Shared norms and responsibility are considered to be an
imperative for teachers to know where they are and to know where they need to go,
while the absence of shared norms and responsibility leaves teachers uncertain about
how well they are doing.
Besides these five conditions, several authors distinguish resources for learning as
supportive or inhibiting conditions for workplace learning, such as (lack of) time, pace
of change, and workload (e.g. Ellinger and Cseh, 2007; Ellström, 2001). In our study
resources for learning are not explored separately, but as part of the five conditions.
For example, when time in the school schedule is allocated for teacher collaboration,
the resource time is embedded in the condition collaboration.
In addition, Coldron and Smith (1999) and Lasky (2005) state that when teachers
redefine teaching and their own role as a teacher within the context of an educational
reform, their interpretations are affected by reform related concepts and practices that
are dominant in their schools. As our study was carried out within such a context of
educational reform, this is another important variable that we included in our study.

3. Method
3.1 Context of the study
This study was conducted in the context of a reform initiated in the Netherlands in
1998 for the upper grades of the two higher tracks of secondary education (higher
general secondary education and pre-university education). In the context of this
reform, teachers are encouraged to introduce a new pedagogy fostering students’ active
and self-regulated learning (ASL) into their classrooms. The new pedagogy involves
teachers becoming facilitators of students’ learning processes and assisting them in
developing their own strategies for learning. For a great number of teachers, this new
pedagogy required a shift in their thinking and behavior as a teacher. At the start of
our study in 2004, many teachers and schools struggled with the requirements of this
reform. Because, due to this reform, all secondary school teachers could be expected to
be engaged in informal learning activities, we considered this context appropriate for
our study. It also enabled us to compare the findings of teachers from various schools
JWL with each other. Our decision to focus on the context of ASL was thus based on
21,4 methodological considerations. It was not our intention to evaluate the reform itself.

3.2 Research design

In our study, we used a sample of 32 teachers who were voluntary subjects in a
14-month study on their learning. A smaller subsample of four teachers was studied in
282 more depth. To achieve a representative subsample, six teachers who were not
involved in formal teacher education were selected from a group of eight teachers who
volunteered for the in-depth study. We further strived for variety in gender and
subject. The resulting subsample of four teachers consisted of two male and two female
teachers teaching four different subjects (Hoekstra et al., 2007). Quantitative data were
used to position the 32 teachers in relation to each other. On that basis, we made the
selection of the two teachers: Miranda and Paul[1], from the subsample of four (see
section 3.5). The qualitative data made it possible to carry out an in-depth analysis of
these two cases. As the quantitative data were supportive of the qualitative data in the
case studies, the study described in the present article can be considered a mixed
method study with an embedded design (Cresswell, 2005, p. 558).

3.3 Data collected among all 32 teachers

3.3.1 Beliefs of teaching and learning regarding the pedagogy of ASL. At the start and
at the end of a school year, data on the total sample of 32 teachers’ beliefs regarding
ASL were collected by means of identical questionnaires. The questionnaires consisted
of three scales: student regulation, construction and collaboration, which together
represent core concepts of the pedagogy of ASL (see Hoekstra et al., n.d. for a detailed
description of the scales). Representative items from each of these three scales are:
(1) Students learn better if they themselves have to monitor their learning process
(student regulation).
(2) Students learn better if they themselves create links between components of the
subject matter (construction).
(3) It is important to let students regularly collaborate with one another
(collaboration).
Teachers could score all items on a five point Likert scale ranging from (1) absolutely
disagree to (5) absolutely agree. Cronbach’s alpha’s of the scales ranged from 0.82 to
0.90, both at the start and end of the study (n ¼ 32). To assess whether individual
teachers changed their beliefs during the year, the differences in scores between the
start and end of the study were calculated and corrected for the standard error of
difference (Reliable Change Index, e.g. Jacobson and Truax, 1991). Differences in scores
larger than could be expected on the basis of the measurement error of the scales were
considered changes in teachers’ beliefs.
3.3.2 Teachers’ perception of dominant ASL beliefs in the school. In order to measure
the 32 teachers’ perceptions of dominant ASL beliefs in the school, we constructed a
questionnaire consisting of 12 items pertaining to ASL beliefs. These items were
derived from the questionnaire on teachers’ ASL beliefs (Hoekstra et al., n.d.), however
now preceded by the line: “Among my colleagues the opinion prevails that . . . ”. Hence,
an example of an item is: Among my colleagues, the opinion prevails that students
learn better if they themselves have to monitor their learning process. The teachers
scored all items on a five point Likert scale ranging from (1) absolutely disagree to (5) Informal
absolutely agree. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale is 0.87 (n ¼ 32). For each of the teachers workplace
it was determined whether they belonged to the 25 per cent of 32 teachers with the
highest scores, the 25 per cent of teachers with the lowest scores or the 50 per cent of learning
teachers in between.
3.3.3 Teachers’ informal learning activities. From the 32 teachers written reports of
learning experiences regarding ASL were collected six times during the year via e-mail. 283
The learning activities in the learning experience report were classified into the
categories:
.
experimenting;
.
getting ideas from others;
.
reflection;
.
experiencing discrepancies; and
.
struggling with behavior.
Each activity was coded to occur in combination with “action-oriented reflection”,
“meaning-oriented reflection”, or “no reflection reported”. For each teacher we counted
how many times each activity was reported in the six learning experience reports.
The coding of activities was conducted independently by three researchers to
strengthen the internal validity of the analyses (Cohen et al., 2000). The results were
compared. In the rare occasion of coding differences, a discussion followed until an
agreement was reached.

3.4 Data collected in the subsample of four teachers

3.4.1 Learning activities during classroom teaching. For the collection of data, the
primary researcher frequently visited the teachers at their schools. Over the school
year, for each teacher six lessons with the same class were recorded on videotape. The
teachers were interviewed after each recorded lesson. Based on the video and interview
data, codes for learning activities during classroom teaching were developed with a
finer code system than used with the learning experience reports. This coding system
included the activities:
.
orienting;
.
practicing new behavior;
.
deploying what works;
.
experimenting with something new;
.
seeking feedback;
.
becoming aware;
.
becoming aware and changing course of action; and
.
becoming aware and reframing (adopting a new interpretation of the situation)
(see Hoekstra et al., 2007 for more details).
These activities were then recoded into the same categories as the activities in the
learning experience reports.
JWL Again, the coding of activities was conducted independently by three researchers to
21,4 strengthen the internal validity of the analyses. In the rare occasion of coding
differences, a discussion followed until an agreement was reached.
3.4.2 Perceptions of conditions for workplace learning. A semi-structured interview
was used for establishing the teachers’ perceptions of the five conditions discussed in
the conceptual framework: autonomy, collaboration, reflective dialogue, receiving
284 feedback, and experience of shared norms and responsibility. A question related to
autonomy was, for instance: does the school management give you enough room to
teach the way you want to teach? One of the questions regarding reflective dialogue
was for instance: do you and your colleagues engage in in-depth conversations about
student learning or your work as a teacher? After questioning each condition, the
teachers were asked whether the condition played a role in their learning, and if so,
how. The interview scheme was tested by three researchers who each interviewed
three teachers in a pilot study. Questions were refined to obtain the required level of
detail and comparability.

3.5 Selection of the two cases

For the selection of the two cases we used a purposeful sampling technique called
“maximal variation sampling” (Cresswell, 2005, p. 214). This technique allows for
examining cases that greatly vary. Based on the data from the 32 teachers, we could
establish that there were significant differences between Miranda and Paul. Miranda’s
beliefs were relatively reform-oriented at the start of the study, and they became even
more reform-oriented after a year. Paul’s beliefs were not reform-oriented and had not
changed after a year.
While the learning outcomes of Miranda and Paul differed, the two different schools
where Miranda and Paul taught seemed to show identical conditions in terms of
general school characteristics that foster or hinder teacher learning. This was the
reason for us to study these two cases in greater-detail. The choice of a limited number
of cases allowed for such detail. The teachers are the unit of analysis in the case
studies.

3.6 Brief descriptions of the two teachers

3.6.1 Miranda. At the start of the study Miranda was a 39-year-old mother tongue
language teacher with nine years of teaching experience. Miranda had two little
children. Her husband was also a mother tongue language teacher at another school.
Miranda taught at a school unit for students in the upper grades and higher tracks
(age 16-18), three classes per day on average. During the research period, Miranda was
the department chair. In addition to her tasks as a teacher, she was a student counselor.
The school was situated in a middle-sized city in a suburban region in the eastern part
of the Netherlands. Miranda’s unit was located in a relatively small building apart from
the other school buildings. The students in this school unit were mostly white
middle-class students. Two years before the study took place, the school had
introduced eight weekly free option hours for students within the timetable, as part of
the implementation of the new pedagogy regarding ASL.
At the start of the study Miranda expressed her concern: “how to make sure that
students actively deal with the subject-matter”. She wanted students to “understand
why they need to learn it, and learn which approaches work for them and which do Informal
not”. workplace
3.6.2 Paul. At the start of the study, Paul was a 37-year-old chemistry teacher with
seven years of teaching experience. When we first met Paul, his firstborn child was six learning
months old.
Paul was teaching at a large comprehensive school in a smaller city, close to a large
city in the Netherlands. Paul was head of the chemistry department. The 285
comprehensive school hosted students from lower social economic status and middle
class families. The population of the school was multicultural. The school had
formulated very explicit behavioral rules for the students, displayed on posters
throughout the school.
At the start of the study, Paul explained that one of his major concerns was “how to
keep in pace with the schedule with a group of students so heterogeneous in level, in a
context in which the students should be encouraged to actively and independently
work on the subject-matter”.

3.7 Case analysis

The interviews on conditions for learning were transcribed verbatim. Initial thematic
coding was conducted by two researchers independently, to identify text segments
related to each of the five conditions for workplace learning under study. Comparison
of the coded segments only led to minor changes. The first author then created a case
summary matrix for each teacher, with six rows, one for each condition, and four
columns. The first column labels the condition described in each row. The data from
the interviews on teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions for learning were
summarized in the second and third column. In the second column we summarized the
contribution of the organization to this condition, while in the third column we
summarized the teachers’ contribution to this condition. In the fourth column, these
summarized data were related to data on the teachers’ informal workplace learning
activities as derived from their learning experience reports and the observations and
interviews of classroom situations. Table I provides an example of the case summary
matrix for the condition collaboration in the case of Paul.
The sixth row of the data summary matrix summarized quantitative findings of the
teachers’ perceptions of dominant ASL beliefs within the school, and an interpretation
of the relation between these data and the teachers’ learning activities and outcomes. A
second researcher, familiar with the conceptual framework and the interview scheme,
but unfamiliar with the specific case data, analyzed the interview data in order to check
the summaries made in the columns for each condition. This researcher also checked
for counterexamples to the first interpretations. This check only led to some minor
revisions.

4. Summary of the case study data

Table II summarizes the findings regarding the two cases, and provides an overview of
the number and type of learning activities found in the learning experience reports and
in the observational and interview data we collected during the year. Important
differences are that Miranda often engages in meaning-oriented reflection, both in her
learning experience reports as well as during her teaching, while such activities were
not found in the case of Paul. Another difference is that Miranda experimented with
 21,4

286
JWL

Table I.

the case of Paul

Example of case
summary matrix for the
condition collaboration in
Relation collaboration – Paul’s learning
Condition Contribution of the organization Contribution of Paul activities

Collaboration Team-level
Interdisciplinary team meetings focus on the
test results of students of the higher general
education track, and how students with poor
results can be helped; students’ results are
assessed against shared norms
Department-level
Experience swapping
Contact with one colleague about tips and
exchange of teaching materials, usually a
division of work
On one occasion help from one colleague to
get understanding of new national standards
All science teachers
Planning of all students’ practicum classes
Attends weekly team meetings, and Collaboration with one department colleague
appreciates discussion on a shared approach reduces workload, feelings of uncertainty,
towards these students as an anchoring and stress
point for him
Initiates one-to-one contact with one
department colleague
Regrets that he does not teach general Paul dislikes deviating from his private
students’ practicum classes anymore, teaching practice, but by following concrete
because for Paul doing practicum classes and useful tips and examples of teaching
with students is a rewarding part of teaching methods, he is occasionally stimulated to try
something new
Paul experiences discussions about students
in the general higher education track as an
anchoring point; he finds it difficult to deal
with these students. Paul experiences that
the discussions help him better understand
and deal with these students
 Informal
Miranda Paul
Beliefs more No change in workplace
Learning outcome: change in ASL beliefs ASL-oriented beliefs learning
Learning activity LERa O&Ib LERa O&Ib

Experimenting 5 Yesd 4.5c Nod

Getting ideas from others 2 No 0 No 287
Learning by doing: struggling with behavior 0 Yes 0 Yes
Learning by doing: experiencing friction 4 Yes 1.5 Yes
Number of learning activities involving 8 Yes 6 Yes
action-oriented reflection
Number of learning activities involving 6 Yes 0 No
meaning-oriented reflection
Notes: aLER ¼ learning experience report; bO&I ¼ observation and interview data from classroom Table II.
teaching situations; cAs Paul only reported four instead of six written reports of his learning Learning outcomes and
experiences, his frequencies of activities were corrected for this number of reports to be able to number and type of
compare them with the frequencies of Miranda; d“yes” means that this activity was found in the activities found in each
classroom teaching data of this teacher, “no” means that this activity was not found in these data case

new classroom behavior during her teaching, while Paul was more often observed
while struggling with his behavior. In the next section, the learning activities of Paul
and Miranda will be described in more detail and in the subsequent sections they will
be related to Paul and Miranda’s perceptions of workplace conditions for learning.

5. Findings on the two teachers’ informal workplace learning

5.1 Miranda’s learning activities and learning outcomes
At the start of the study, Miranda’s beliefs about active and self-regulated learning
could be characterized as collaboration-oriented. This means that she scored above
average (compared to the other 31 teachers) on beliefs about “learning as construction
of knowledge” as well as “learning as a social phenomenon that occurs in
collaboration”. Her beliefs about the “importance of students’ self-regulated learning”
were average. After a year, Miranda scored significantly higher on the scale beliefs of
students’ self-regulated learning. In the data of Miranda we found a relatively high
frequency of learning activities such as experimenting, getting ideas from others and
meaning-oriented mental reflection.
We found that Miranda’s learning activities had a strong focus on new materials,
ideas and teaching methods, more so than the other teachers. She was often observed
when experimenting with a certain teaching format and was also practicing new
behavior during teaching. In one of the observed situations, for instance, a student
asked Miranda for help. The student was busy formulating peer feedback on an essay
of his classmate. Miranda was observed asking this student a lot of open questions.
During the interview after the lesson, Miranda explained her interpretation of the
situation:
A few times during this lesson, I had given the students an answer rather quickly. Then I
thought I should not do this, because they are busy formulating good points of feedback for
the student whose work they are assessing. So, I have to help them to describe their own
feedback explicitly. Thus, I should not be answering questions, which they have not even
adequately formulated. So I thought, I should better join in with what the student says . . .
JWL In this situation Miranda noticed during the lesson that her own behavior of quickly
21,4 answering students’ questions did not contribute to the learning goal she had in mind
for the students and that the students should practice giving their own feedback to
their peer student. When the student hesitantly started to say what he thought about
the essay, Miranda suggested: “Okay, if that is how you feel about it, then write that
down”. The observed situation is an example of how Miranda is practicing to address
288 the students in such a way that they are stimulated to give their own opinion and
formulate their own feedback, instead of writing down Miranda’s suggestions.
In addition, we found that Miranda was relatively often involved in
meaning-oriented reflection. Five out of the six learning experience reports Miranda
sent in dealt with experiments with new teaching formats or student tasks. Both in her
teaching and in her learning experience reports, Miranda showed meaning-oriented
reflection. In the previous citation, for instance, Miranda is not only concerned with
how to teach, but also with why to behave in a certain way: because when students
practice formulating their own points of peer feedback, they are more actively engaged
in the learning experience.

5.2 Paul’s learning activities and learning outcomes

Both at the start of the study and after a year, Paul’s beliefs regarding active and
self-regulated learning were much below the average of the total group of 32 teachers.
Paul was very much concerned with how to achieve acceptable student results. Paul
relied on teaching strategies that had yielded success in the past. Paul resolved, for
instance, to give more frontal instruction, something he believed the students needed,
while the new pedagogy encouraged teachers to give less frontal instruction.
In three of the four reported learning experiences, Paul reported trying out
something new. Paul did not explicitly explain why he experimented in these
occasions. However, the researchers observed that the three experiments share one
particular characteristic: they only occurred under circumstances that would not
diminish Paul’s feeling of control over student results. In the first reported experiment,
for instance, Paul experimented with how to use two science kits for an international
project, called Biocase and Infocase (pseudonyms). This international project was not
part of the curriculum; most students were not enrolled in the science program. Hence,
if the new method failed, Paul would not risk a decrease in student results. In the other
two reports of experiments we observed that he also chose safe situations for
experimenting.
In the data of Paul, only action-oriented reflection was found. The new science kits
used in the international project, were externally developed for interdisciplinary
science experiments for the students, and consisted of two different sets of little
suitcases with science materials and task descriptions. Groups of students received
two suitcases, one from each set. The students had to do five experiments from each
suitcase. Paul reported about this lesson:
I have learned a lot from this lesson. First of all, the number of experiments was too large. It is
possible to do all in one lesson, but not during the first time . . . Experiments from the Biocase
suitcase cost a lot more time than experiments from the Infocase suitcase. The science
teaching assistant also told me it is easier to give each set of reactors (chemicals) a different
color . . . I feel content that I learned a lot for the next time.
This type of reflection is typical for Paul. It is action-oriented. No instances of Informal
meaning-oriented mental activities were found in the data of Paul. workplace
6. Findings on the relation between teachers’ perceptions of workplace learning
conditions for learning and informal workplace learning activities
In this section, the two teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions for learning in
their direct work environment are compared and related to their informal workplace 289
learning activities.

6.1 Autonomy
At the school level, Miranda felt that her own control over her teaching practices was
restricted by the mandatory year planning and cumulative marks of the students. In
the past Miranda and her subject matter colleagues contributed to a joint protest
against the decision that students’ marks should be based on tests of all three years. At
the individual level, however, each department member experienced a lack of shared
practice and each experienced individual autonomy as regards to how to teach. Due to
the lack of agreement, Miranda experienced little inspiration from department
members to improve her teaching. However, the lack of agreement also provided her
with the opportunity to teach in her own way. Miranda: “Because (the department
colleagues and the school management) do not interfere, I can do my own things . . .
This surely contributes something to my teaching . . . Now that I think about it, I really
like that”.
Unlike Miranda, Paul did not feel any restrictions from the school management or
its policies, but he experienced somewhat more influence from the department:
There is no involvement from the school board or school management about the way you
teach . . . within our department we agree to achieve the same goals and administer the same
tests . . . Especially those same tests need to be tuned to one another, also what we teach and
what not in the lessons . . . A lot is possible, but it really all is own initiative, here in school.
There is not a lot of regulation in this.
Paul thus experienced a lot of autonomy within the school. On the question what this
autonomy meant for his own development as a teacher, Paul answered:
I personally find it difficult to develop oneself in school . . . I sometimes regret that there is so
little encouragement and involvement from the school management.
In sum, Miranda enjoyed the experience of autonomy to teach the way she wanted, and
used it to develop her own teaching by experimenting with new student tasks and
teaching methods. Paul did not appreciate the autonomy he had as much as Miranda,
and perceived a lack of direction.

6.2 Collaboration
Miranda explained that department teachers did not collaborate much. Even though
her department created the year planning and cooperated on making student tests,
each teacher worked on his/her own task for the department, and teachers thus
experienced little interdependency. Miranda felt that it was uncommon to ask other
teachers for help. Collaboration reduced workload but hardly contributed to Miranda’s
learning, because collaboration in department meetings did not involve any discussion
about how to teach. Miranda: “I have the idea that I do not use my resources for
JWL learning optimally, because I usually get inspired by people, or by things I read, and
21,4 that part is lacking right now”.
Paul did not collaborate often with his subject-matter department colleagues.
Contact with subject-matter colleagues was largely informal and consisted of helping
each other out on certain tasks, such as the construction of student tests. Paul found
this collaboration helpful because it reduced workload.
290 Informal conversations with peers sometimes contributed to Paul experimenting
with concrete new ideas. Paul also attended weekly meetings of the team of higher
general education teachers in which they sometimes discussed a shared approach to
student learning. Paul reported: “I experience these [discussions] as very positive. They
give me some anchoring point, so to speak”. These discussions helped him to deal with
the students from the higher general education track.
In sum, for both teachers collaboration reduced workload but it did not provide
them with innovative ideas or inspiration. However, Paul experienced team
discussions sometimes as supportive as they provided him with an anchoring point
and helped him deal with his students.

6.3 Reflective dialogue

Miranda found compensation for the lack of inspiration she received from her
colleagues by discussing her teaching practices with her colleague Bob, and with her
life partner. In informal contacts with colleagues outside her department, she sought
opportunities for learning by reflective dialogue about her teaching practices and
receiving feedback. In answer to the question how these conversations helped her, she
explains:
I can better understand what happened . . . It is also a form of relief. Like I said before, about
that poetry lesson, it was such chaos. I discussed that lesson with a colleague from another
department, and he asked questions like: “How could it have been different?” and “What
would the students have learned then?”. I came to the conclusion that the lesson wasn’t so
bad. The students were very actively involved and hence the chaos, you know. I was pleased
with that, I realized: Oh yeah, this is also a way of looking at the lesson.
The conversation helped Miranda reinterpret the “chaos” in her classroom. Reflective
dialogue thus helped Miranda evaluate her teaching in a meaning-oriented way.
Paul occasionally and informally discussed student learning and teaching with one
department colleague and with other science colleagues. Paul stressed that “difficult
discussions” are not his strongest quality. Informal discussions hardly stimulated Paul
to engage in meaning-oriented reflection.
In sum, it can be concluded that Miranda actively seeks reflective dialogue with
certain like-minded people, which helped her to reflect in a meaning-oriented way,
while Paul found such discussions difficult and did not show meaning-oriented
reflection.

6.4 Receiving feedback

Miranda explained that it was unusual among her department colleagues to provide or
receive feedback about their teaching practice. At the school level feedback, was
organized, in yearly evaluations of teaching, by the team leader. Lesson observation,
and a student survey, were used by the team leader as a starting point for an evaluative
talk with the teacher. Ironically, Miranda did not really value this singular organized Informal
source for feedback in the school: workplace
My team leader is a really nice man, but he does not inspire me . . . I’m always very critical learning
towards myself, and I am surprised when somebody gives me feedback about something I
have not thought about myself . . . In those annual talks, they only tell me things I already
knew and reflected on, you know. I regret that.
Miranda did, on the other hand, seek feedback from the students by asking students
291
how they appreciated her teaching. She also occasionally sought feedback from
colleagues in informal conversations.
Paul rarely received feedback. But, as a result of the shared responsibility for
teaching, a colleague once gave him the advice to explain a certain piece of subject
matter to the students again. Paul explained:
When I hear something from a colleague, I try to do something with it, at least when I agree
with him. Look, sometimes I get feedback that I cannot use. When they tell me: “Wouldn’t you
explain this again in your group, because your results are disappointing”, I really cannot use
that kind of feedback, because I have already explained it and tested it . . . I can only try to
focus on the topic a little more when it comes back in a following chapter.
When asked about how he values feedback, Paul replied: “I value feedback positively
. . . although I find it scary to be criticized”. Paul appeared to experience feedback as a
form of criticism.
In sum, it can be observed that both Miranda and Paul sometimes received feedback
that they consider they cannot use. However, Miranda sought additional sources of
constructive feedback from colleagues and students, whereas Paul did not.

6.5 Shared norms and responsibility

When asked whether teachers in her school feel a shared responsibility for student
learning Miranda answered:
In theory, yes, . . . but when we talk about it, for instance when we have to make the year
planning, it appears that we have a shared responsibility, but that we all understand this
responsibility in a different way . . . I do not engage in department conversations on how to
teach, none of us does, this way it works for us . . .
When school discussions were organized regarding shared norms, the conversations
were shaped in such general terms that it did not directly relate to teachers’ own
professionalism. Miranda observed a lack of agreement on what these general terms
mean. Miranda: “To me it only causes a lot of frustration, nothing more”. Miranda:
“This [lack of explicitly shared norms] plays a role in my teaching, in such a way that I
teach according to my own norms”.
Paul explained that in team meetings, teachers collaborated to achieve school
norms: “It is one of the goals of the student discussions that we keep an eye on the
students with learning difficulties . . .We insist on having a certain percentage of
students being promoted to the next grade level”. Paul appreciated the shared
responsibility he felt as a result of these team meetings:
It gives me a feeling of “I’m not solely responsible for this class”. It gives me some confidence.
When you hear that a class does not do well and has the same problem with another teacher,
it is a shared responsibility to do something about it. It makes me feel that you are not alone in
this.
JWL On the other hand, Paul’s interpretation of the strictness of these norms regarding
21,4 student promotion and graduation had a direct consequence for the way Paul felt about
his students’ results: “It really encourages you to do your best . . . If a class does well,
this generates a good feeling”. In answer to the question what happens when a class
does not perform well, Paul said: “That gives me a really bad feeling”. As Paul took the
strong norms for student results very seriously, Paul felt strongly responsible for his
292 students to have high enough marks, which can be related to the observation that Paul
only experimented with new assignments and methods in situations where he felt
secure that the experiment would not negatively impact students’ results.
In sum, Miranda experienced a lack of shared norms and responsibility, which
frustrated her, but allowed her to teach according to her own norms. Paul on the other
hand, took the strong school norms regarding students’ results very seriously, which
can be related to his tendency not to deviate too much from his existing practice.

6.6 Dominant beliefs and practices regarding ASL

Miranda perceived that her colleagues differed in their beliefs regarding ASL. On the
scale “dominant beliefs on ASL within the school” she scored at an average level, while
her own beliefs of ASL were above average. The former sections described how
Miranda reflected on her teaching practices in informal contacts with some of her
colleagues. In section 6.3, for instance, Miranda described how a colleague helped
Miranda to re-interpret a lesson as conducive of fostering ASL. In the interview on her
perceptions of workplace conditions for learning, Miranda describes her perception of
her department colleagues as follows:
I notice with (department) colleagues, they are somewhat older; they do the same year after
year, same material, same subject. That drives me totally nuts . . . So it is a bit like: you do
what you want and I do what I want . . . It is not that we say: let us collaboratively work on
the improvement of the students’ writing file (part of the curriculum) . . . But on the other
hand, it does not really inhibit me to teach the way I want to.
Thus Miranda’s perception that dominant beliefs in the school are more traditional
than her own, do not inhibit her to teach in her own more reform-oriented way.
Paul’s score of the dominant ASL-beliefs within the school belonged to the 25 per
cent of the 32 teachers with the lowest scores, while his own beliefs of ASL were also
below average. Paul told us that during the first years the reform was implemented,
student results appeared disappointing. Together with two other colleagues from the
chemistry department, it was decided to give more frontal instruction, which is not in
line with the new pedagogy. Paul: “I felt I’d rather be safe than sorry”. Giving frontal
instruction is thus for Paul a safe way of teaching.
In sum, Miranda perceived the dominant beliefs to be average, but managed to find
reform-oriented colleagues and materials, while Paul seems more compliant with
dominant beliefs and practices within the school.

7. Conclusions and discussion

7.1 Relations between teachers’ informal workplace learning and their perceptions of
workplace conditions for learning
Our research question was: what is the relationship between teachers’ informal
workplace learning and their perceptions of workplace conditions for learning? The
findings show that the conditions for teacher learning as derived from the literature are
indeed relevant for teachers’ informal workplace learning (Louis et al., 1996; Marks and Informal
Louis, 1999; Rosenholtz, 1989; Smylie, 1995; Smylie and Hart, 1999). However, the workplace
teachers do not passively undergo these conditions. The diverging ways the two
teachers perceive, interpret and actively shape these conditions help to explain learning
differences in the teachers’ learning activities and learning outcomes.
More specifically, our findings show how Miranda enjoys autonomy and reflective
dialogue; she seeks feedback, is not hindered by the lack of shared norms she perceives, 293
and is able to find like-minded people that help her improve her practice. Within this
context there is an opportunity for her to engage in those learning activities that
promote teachers’ beliefs becoming more ASL-oriented: experimenting and getting
new ideas from others in combination with meaning-oriented reflection. For Paul, the
experience of too much autonomy in which he misses a sense of direction, a lack of
reflective dialogue and a lack of feedback seems to have contributed to a situation in
which he struggles with the reform and in which he experiences little incentive to
reflect on his teaching in a meaning-oriented way. Thus, Miranda and Paul’s
perception of autonomy, feedback and reflective dialogue are related to their informal
workplace learning.
Collaboration and shared norms and responsibility are regarded as factors that
foster teacher learning (Smylie, 1995; Louis et al., 1996). Our findings show that this
relationship is complex and not self-evident. Regarding collaboration, both teachers
talked about collaboration as a means to reduce workload by dividing tasks. However,
the results show that a collaborative setting in which teachers divide their work, hardly
contributes to innovative teacher learning (compare Imants, 2003). Although Paul
experiences support from the discussions in his team, which make him realize that he is
not alone in dealing with the students, this experience of collaboration first and for all
contributes to the continuation of existing routines. Hence, the relationship between
collaboration and learning is not self-evident: it depends on how this collaboration is
interpreted and shaped (see also Little, 1999, and Meirink, 2007). Regarding shared
norms and learning, the same complexity recurs. In the case of Miranda, the experience
of a lack of shared norms allowed her to teach according to her own reform-oriented
norms, whereas in the case of Paul, his interpretation of the shared norms as they
emphasize teacher-oriented teaching contributed to reinforcing existing practices.
In addition, our findings confirm that dominant beliefs on teaching and learning and
dominant practices in the school play a significant role as workplace conditions for
informal workplace learning in the context of reform (Coldron and Smith, 1999; Lasky,
2005).
For a further understanding of the relationship between conditions for learning in
the workplace and informal workplace learning (e.g. Ellinger, 2005; Sambrook and
Stewart, 2000; Skule, 2004) our findings mean that such conditions do not exist apart
from the teachers. Not only are teachers’ perceptions of these conditions of major
importance, teachers also actively contribute to shaping these conditions. Pertaining to
the importance of perception, a study by Coetzer (2007) recently showed that
employees in small firms perceive the conditions for learning in their work
environment differently, depending on age, level of education and tenure. In line with
Coetzer’s work, our study shows that in schools too, employees’ perceptions of
conditions in the workplace for learning differ. Moreover, our study clarifies how
different perceptions of conditions for learning in the workplace can help explain
JWL differences in informal workplace learning activities as well as differences in learning
21,4 outcomes (compare Imants and Van Veen, n.d.). In interpreting the findings of studies
into conditions for workplace learning one should take into account the important role
employee’s perceptions of these conditions play in the learning process.
Regarding the active role of teachers, it can be concluded that the conditions for
informal learning in the direct work environment are partially shaped by the
294 availability of resources and general conditions in the school, and partially by the
teachers as actors and active interpreters of their work. Our findings substantiate
Billett’s (2004) argument that “Individuals are not passive in their participatory
practices and learning” (p. 319). Our results also confirm the findings of Bryson et al.
(2006) who conducted a study of workplace learning in a large New Zealand wine
company. Bryson et al. (2006) found that “where individuals were proactive, a
seemingly restrictive development environment was experienced as far more
expansive; just as a potentially expansive environment could be experienced as
restrictive by those who did not take initiative”. In a large quantitative study, Skule
(2004) found that individuals with a stronger interest in learning tended to have jobs
that are more learning intensive. Our findings confirm Skule’s tentative interpretation
that “most jobs provide scope for some individual adaptation, allowing these
individuals to get more learning out of the situations than their colleagues” (Skule,
2004, p. 15).
Starting from the understanding that conditions for learning in the school are
partially constructed by the teachers and partially by others in the school, future
research could focus on the role of both the teacher and others in the joint construction
of these conditions. Qualitative studies could focus on patterns of interaction between
teachers and others in the school and relate these patterns to workplace learning
activities and outcomes. Quantitative studies could further explore the interaction
effects of combinations of individual and context variables on teachers’ engagement in
informal workplace learning activities. For instance, pro-active teachers may engage in
optimal informal workplace learning in a context that provides little direction, whereas
reactive teachers may learn optimally in a context that provides ample direction.

7.2 Limitations of the study

As participation in the study was voluntary for each of the 32 teachers, sample bias is
possible. As we focused on only two cases, our findings regarding the relationship
between informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions for
learning cannot be generalized. The small sample size of two teachers is an important
limitation of our study. On the other hand, the cases are derived from the sample of 32
teachers on the basis of concrete criteria.
Another limitation of the study is that we did not systematically collect
observational data of the teachers’ meetings and informal encounters in their
workplace. However, since we regularly visited the teachers’ classrooms and
interviewed the teachers, the data from the workplace conditions interviews could be
corroborated by notes of incidental observations during those visits.

7.3 Practical implications

For practices in schools, it is important to realize that workplace conditions are not
objective nor a given fact, determining teacher behavior and teacher learning in a
one-directional manner. Administrators can do everything recommended to foster Informal
learning in the workplace, but their efforts will fail if they have no impact on the workplace
teachers’ perceptions of conditions fostering workplace learning. School principals and
others who are responsible for teacher development, should realize that each individual learning
teacher may interpret and shape these conditions differently, and that this explains the
often huge differences in learning outcomes. Hence, in order to enhance teachers’
informal workplace learning, not only the school organization, but also each individual 295
teacher can and should contribute to creating optimal conditions for teacher learning.
In our earlier studies (Hoekstra et al., 2007) it was concluded that teachers, especially
experienced teachers, do not usually consider themselves as learners. As a
consequence, a first step in creating optimal conditions for learning would be that
teachers themselves, as well as school administrators, consider not only the students
but also the teachers as learners, and that every actor realizes the responsibilities
involved. We believe that it is thus also important that teachers learn how to learn
within their workplaces. Initiatives to promote action research (e.g. Glanz, 2003),
self-study research (Loughran et al., 2004) or the “Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning” (Hatch, 2005) may be beneficial in this respect, as they encourage teachers to
assess the impact of their own teaching practices and share their findings with the
larger educational community, and thus become active learners, who take
responsibility for the conditions for learning in their workplaces.

Note
1. To ensure anonymity of the teachers we used pseudonyms.

References
Ashton, D. (2004), “The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the
workplace”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Billett, S. (2004), “Workplace participatory practices: conceptualising workplaces as learning
environments”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 312-24.
Bryson, J., Pajo, K., Ward, R. and Mallon, M. (2006), “Learning at work: organisational
affordances and individual engagement”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 279-97.
Coetzer, A. (2007), “Employee perceptions of their workplaces as learning environments”, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 417-34.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000), Research Methods in Education, 5th ed., Routledge
Falmer, London.
Coldron, J. and Smith, R. (1999), “Active location in teachers’ construction of their professional
identities”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 711-26.
Cresswell, J.W. (2005), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative
and Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Day, C. (1999), Developing Teachers: The Challenges of Lifelong Learning, Falmer Press, London.
Doornbos, A.J., Bolhuis, S. and Simons, P.R.J. (2004), “Modeling work-related learning on the
basis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: a non-educational perspective”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 250-75.
Dunn, T.G. and Shriner, C. (1999), “Deliberate practice in teaching: what teachers do for
self-improvement”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 613-51.
JWL Ellinger, A.D. (2005), “Contextual factors influencing informal learning in workplace settings:
the case of ‘reinventing itself company’”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16
21,4 No. 3, pp. 389-415.
Ellinger, A.D. and Cseh, M. (2007), “Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’
learning through everyday work experiences”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 19
No. 7, pp. 435-52.
296 Ellström, P.E. (2001), “Integrating learning and work: problems and prospects”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 421-35.
Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 247-73.
Glanz, J. (2003), Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement,
Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Norwood, MA.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D. (1998), International Handbook of
Educational Change, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston, MA/London.
Hatch, T. (2005), Into the Classroom: Developing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Hodkinson, H. and Hodkinson, P. (2005), “Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning”,
Research Papers in Education, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 109-31.
Hoekstra, A., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M. and Korthagen, F.A.J. (2007), “Experienced teachers’
informal learning from classroom teaching”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-208.
Hoekstra, A., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D. and Korthagen, F.A.J. (n.d.), “Experienced teachers’
informal learning: learning activities and changes in behavior and cognition”, Teaching
and Teacher Education (in press).
Imants, J. (2003), “Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning in schools”, European
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 293-311.
Imants, J. and Van Veen, K. (n.d.), “Teacher learning as workplace learning”, in Baker, E.,
McGaw, B. and Peterson, P. (Eds), The International Encyclopaedia of Education, 3rd ed.,
Elsevier, Amsterdam (in press).
Jacobson, N.S. and Truax, P. (1991), “Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining
meaningful change in psychotherapy research”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 12-19.
Kwakman, C.H.E. (2003), “Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning
activities”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-70.
Lasky, S. (2005), “A socio-cultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and
professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform”, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 899-916.
Lee, Y.J. and Roth, W.M. (2007), “The individual I collective dialectic in the learning
organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-107.
Little, J.W. (1999), Teachers’ Professional Development in the Context of High School Reform:
Findings from a Three-year Study of Restructuring Schools, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Lohman, M.C. (2006), “Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 141-56.
Lohman, M.C. and Woolf, N.H. (2001), “Self-initiated learning activities of experienced public
school teachers: methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences”, Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Loughran, J.J., Hamilton, M.L., Kubler LaBoskey, V. and Russell, T. (2004), International Informal
Handbook of Self-study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht. workplace
Louis, K., Marks, H. and Kruse, S. (1996), “Teachers’ professional community in restructuring learning
schools”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 757-98.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D.D., Beijaard, D. and Verloop, N. (2007), “The portfolio as a tool for
stimulating reflection by student teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, 297
pp. 47-62.
Marks, H. and Louis, K. (1999), “Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational
learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 707-9.
Meirink, J.A. (2007), “Individual teacher learning in a context of collaboration in teams”, doctoral
dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden.
Meirink, J.A., Meijer, P.C. and Verloop, N. (2007), “A closer look at teachers’ individual learning in
collaborative settings”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 145-64.
Meirink, J.A., Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N. and Bergen, T.C.M. (2009), “Understanding teacher
learning in secondary education: the relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about
teaching and learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Paredes-Scribner, J. (1999), “Professional development: untangling the influence of work context
on teacher learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 238-66.
Richardson, V. and Placier, P. (2001), “Teacher change”, in Richardson, V. (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teaching, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 905-47.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989), Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools, Longman,
London/New York, NY.
Sambrook, S. (2005), “Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning:
synthesizing findings from two research projects”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 101-19.
Sambrook, S. and Stewart, J. (2000), “Factors influencing learning in European learning-oriented
organizations: issues for management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 209-19.
Shuell, T.J. (1986), “Cognitive beliefs of learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 56 No. 4,
pp. 411-36.
Shuell, T.J. (1990), “Phases of meaningful learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 531-47.
Skule, S. (2004), “Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal
learning in the workplace”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 8-20.
Smaller, H. (2005), “Teacher informal learning and teacher knowledge: theory, practice and
policy”, in Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K. and Livingstone, D. (Eds),
International Handbook of Educational Policy, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 543-68.
Smylie, M. (1995), “Teacher learning in the workplace: implications for school reform”, in Guskey,
T. and Huberman, M. (Eds), Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and
Practices, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, pp. 92-113.
Smylie, M. and Hart, A.W. (1999), “School leadership for teacher learning and change: a human and
social capital development perspective”, in Murphy, J. and Louis, K. (Eds), Handbook of
Research on Educational Administration, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 421-41.
JWL Straka, G.A. (2004), “Informal learning: genealogy, concepts, antagonisms and questions”, ITB
Forschungsberichte 15, University of Bremen, Bremen, available at: www.itb. uni-bremen.
21,4 de/downloads/Publikationen/Forschungsberichte/fb_15_04.pdf (accessed July 14, 2008).
Van Eekelen, I.M., Boshuizen, H.P.A. and Vermunt, J. (2005), “Self-regulation in higher education
teacher learning”, Higher Education, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 447-72.
Van Eekelen, I.M., Vermunt, J. and Boshuizen, H.P.A. (2006), “Exploring teachers’ will to learn”,
298 Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 408-23.
Van Woerkom, M., Nijhof, W.J. and Nieuwenhuis, L.F.M. (2002), “Critical reflective working
behavior: a survey research”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 375-83.
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J.H. and Meijer, P. (2001), “Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of
teaching”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 441-61.
Zwart, R.C., Wubbels, T., Bolhuis, S. and Bergen, T.C.M. (2008), “Teacher learning through
reciprocal peer coaching: an analysis of activity sequences”, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 982-1002.

About the authors

Annemarieke Hoekstra just recently received a doctorate degree in educational research from the
University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Her dissertation reports on her studies on experienced
teachers’ informal learning in the workplace. She currently works as a research consultant at the
Centre for Teaching and Learning at NAIT Institute of Technology, Edmonton, Canada. She is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: anne_marieke@yahoo.com
Fred Korthagen is a full Professor of Education at VU University in Amsterdam and Utrecht
University, The Netherlands. His primary fields of interest are the professional development of
teachers and teacher education. Twice he received the Exemplary Research Award from the
AERA Division of Teaching and Teacher Education for publications on the integration of theory
and practice in teacher education.
Mieke Brekelmans is a full Professor of Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Her
interest is the study of teaching from multiple perspectives, in particular the interpersonal and
learning activities perspective. Her focus is on the relation between teacher thinking and action,
and the development of teaching during the professional teacher’s career.
Douwe Beijaard works as a full professor at Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven
University of Technology, The Netherlands. His main research interests pertain to professional
learning, identity and competence of teachers.
Jeroen Imants is an Associate Professor at Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
His research interests are in the fields of organizational theory, teacher professional development
and school reform, and his research focus is on the interrelationships between organizing,
teaching and learning.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints