Educational Action Research

Connecting Research and Practice for Professionals and Communities

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Development of professional learning

communities through action research:
understanding professional learning in practice

Peter Johannesson

To cite this article: Peter Johannesson (2022) Development of professional learning

communities through action research: understanding professional learning in practice,
Educational Action Research, 30:3, 411-426, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 02 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6733

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20
EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH
2022, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 411–426
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100

Development of professional learning communities through

action research: understanding professional learning in
practice
Peter Johannesson
Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper explores professional learning as teachers engage in Received 22 June 2020
action research to improve their practices. Despite many contribu­ Accepted 18 September 2020
tions on professional learning communities and their effects on KEYWORDS
school improvement, there is less research on how they are devel­ Classroom action research;
oped and how teachers learn collectively. Using a social theory of communities of practice;
learning, three dimensions of communities of practice are used to professional learning
analyse and describe the qualities of learning groups, where tea­
chers participate by conducting action research. Findings suggest
that when teachers engage in action research, they develop
a shared repertoire related to the local needs, as well as to the
field and traditions of action research. In turn, the repertoire facil­
itates collaboration among teachers. However, different under­
standings of the project affect mutual engagement in the learning
groups. This indicates that deficiencies in alignment between the
local practice and the practice of action research, affect the group
qualities and may hinder the development of a PLC. Hence, this
paper argues for the importance of making explicit the learning
goals for both the local schools’ improvement work and the new
way of working, which is the refinement of the practice. The impli­
cations for practice in schools entail making practice visible, includ­
ing each school’s learning history.

Introduction
Professional development (PD) and professional learning communities (PLC) are widely
accepted as contributing factors for the improvement of teaching practices and the
transformation of student learning (Darling-Hammond and Richardson 2009; Katz and
Dack 2014; Kennedy 2016). While a PLC’s characteristics have been described, there
remains the need for a deeper understanding of how teachers learn collectively and
what enables teacher learning in situ (Opfer and Pedder 2011). According to Stoll et al.
(2006), there is evidence that ‘educational reform’s progress depends on teachers’ indivi­
dual and collective capacity and its link with school-wide capacity for promoting pupils’
learning’ (p. 221). Successful professional learning and development have been identified
when teachers engage in inquiry and knowledge-building cycles that start with the
students’ needs (Muijs et al. 2014). Action research is one approach to inquiry cycles

CONTACT Peter Johannesson peter.johannesson@gu.se

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
412 P. JOHANNESSON

that has been more commonly embraced in schools in Australia and England (Mockler
and Groundwater-Smith 2015). This is also the case in Sweden, where the Swedish
National Agency for Education (SNA) provides schools with collegial learning programmes
and promotes schools’ engagement in action research to take responsibility for their own
improvement (Skolverket 2016).
The changes in the Swedish Education Act in 2010 state that all education in Sweden
should rest on science and proven experience (SFS [The Swedish Code of Statutes] 2010,
800), which requires schools to adopt research findings and scientific methods in their
daily work. In an era of increased focus on student results and international comparisons,
teachers are held more accountable for their students’ results, which might in turn
undermine the critical dimension of action research (Mockler and Groundwater-Smith
2015). Furthermore, without problematising the end goal of action research, it might
serve to reinforce existing practices (Noffke 2009) and thus not promote change. An
uncritical adoption of action research might lead to its use as an implementation tool,
with collaborations within the teachers’ comfort zone and decreased learning possibilities
as consequences (Wennergren 2016).
Given this background, this study aims to describe and deepen the knowledge about
the development of PLCs as teachers meet regularly to improve their practices through
action research. Using analytical tools from Wenger’s (1998, 2000) social learning theory,
this article examines how teachers engage with one another in their development work
and what repertoire is developed through this work. The research questions are as
follows: How does the development of a PLC unfold in practice? What does this mean
in relation to teacher learning in practice?

Background
Continuous professional development (CPD) programmes come in different forms. In her
review of the literature on CPD, Kennedy (2014) identifies nine models of CPD and labels
them in relations to their purposes, ranging from transmissive to malleable to transfor­
mative, with an increasing capacity for professional autonomy and teacher agency from
the first to the last model. CPD programmes can be national and state initiatives,
collaborations between research communities and schools or local undertakings. In her
spectrum of CPD models, Kennedy (2014, 693) labels action research as having
a transformative purpose and being a collaborative professional inquiry model, with the
highest capacity for professional autonomy and teacher agency. Additionally, action
research is commonly promoted because of its promising abilities to bridge the gap
between research and practice.
These abilities have more recently been further highlighted by Davis et al. (2018), who
argue that teachers should think like researchers in an era when teachers are responsible
for student outcomes. However, their study reveals difficulties among student teachers
conducting action research in the practice of schools, where the time-consuming process
it entails seems the most prominent. In their study, resistance towards implementing an
action research project is manifested in ‘not associating the investment of time with the
ultimate purpose of the research – to investigate problems of practice within their class­
rooms and gain insight and essential research skills from the action research process’ (p.
70). This is a common phenomenon in education, and with the attempt to address these
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 413

gaps across research, policy and PD, Dimmock (2016, 52) argues for schools’ engagement
in research around the notion of PLCs to close these gaps. The notion of PLCs and
adoptions of the broad concept of knowledge-building cycles have carried with them
an increased emphasis on learning.

For example, the term ‘action research’ seems to have been relegated somewhat in favour of
the increasingly popular, and more broadly encompassing, ‘professional inquiry’; and ‘com­
munities of practice’ are perhaps more commonly called ‘learning communities’ or ‘teacher
learning communities’, maybe reflecting a more explicit emphasis on learning as opposed to
simply practice. (Kennedy 2014, 692)

In the pursuit of a deeper understanding of ‘teacher learning’, Kennedy (2014, 690)

concludes, ‘Most of this work, however, focuses on the individual teacher as the unit of
analysis’, which calls for research that focuses on PLCs and schools as the units of analysis.
The notion of learning in practice, as opposed to ‘simply practice’, also needs further
attention.
As practices unfold differently in different schools, Groundwater-Smith and Mockler
(2009) address the importance of making practice visible and participants’ sharing
a collective responsibility. They suggest the possibility to imagine PLCs as communities
forming for a specific purpose and ‘not an end in themselves, but a means of cultivating
skills, knowledge and dispositions for specific purposes’ (Groundwater-Smith and Mockler
2009, 104). Stating this, they draw on the work by Warren Little (2002, pp. 936–937), who
argues that learning becomes apparent in ongoing activities and changes in action and
participation and that tracing trajectories of individual and collective changes in practice
is a promising way to show development and learning in professional practice.
The issue on the effects of PLCs has also been raised. Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2009, 50) state that ‘[b]ecause effective collaboration requires much more
than simply bringing teachers together, we need to learn how schools can form and
support teacher learning communities that engage in joint work’. The present article can
be viewed as a response to this and to Warren Little’s (2002) call for research that
demonstrates how PLCs achieve their effects. In this case, this means unpacking the
ongoing activities and changes in participation in teacher learning groups, organised
around making changes in practices through action research. By doing so, this article
contributes to deeper knowledge regarding teacher learning in practice through action
research and its possible consequences for practice.
In her attempt to identify crucial factors concerning teacher learning in an inquiry
process, Wennergren (2016) discusses the importance of a critical friend when teachers
engage in action research. Her findings show that the absence of a critical friend’s role
poses the risk of teachers engaging in more comfortable collaborations on changes in the
classroom, rather than stepping into a zone of more discomfort, with increased possibi­
lities for learning. Another crucial factor highlights the complexity of mastering several
sets of skills in conducting action research (Wennergren 2016). Mastering procedural and
methodological skills should coincide with the practice of teaching.
The differences between the research community and the practice in schools have also
been highlighted by Møller (1998), who discriminates between action research as profes­
sional work and action research as a research strategy. This means that for teachers to
embark on the risky journey of critically examining their own practice in order to learn
414 P. JOHANNESSON

from it, schools must have a culture of trust. Furthermore, the act of teaching should align
with the act of researching to prevent utilising action research as an implementation tool
for evidence-based practice (cf. Mockler and Groundwater-Smith 2015). In her historical
review of action research literature, Noffke (2009) concludes that although action research
takes various forms, there is a common epistemological ground where knowledge is
closely connected to practice, and the political dimension is always present. While the
evidence-based movement assumes that there are general answers on how to act in
practice, this situated perspective indicates that all planned changes must relate to
existing practices. Adopting this epistemological stance, the following section outlines
the situated learning theory developed by Lave and Wenger (1991) and further developed
by Wenger (1998, 2000), which guides the analysis.

Theoretical framework
The primary focus of Wenger’s (1998, 2000, 2018) theory of learning is on learning as
social participation. In his case, participation refers to involvement in the negotiation and
the reification of a joint problem or project in the practices of social communities, as well
as the construction of identities in relation to these communities. This means that (a) for
the individual, learning is an issue of engaging in the community’s practices, (b) for the
community, learning is a matter of refining its practices and of its self-maintenance, and
(c) for the organisation to support learning, it needs to sustain the interconnected
communities of practice (CoPs) that make the organisation effective. According to
Wenger (1998, 2000, 2018), CoPs can be described and analysed by means of three
dimensions: shared repertoire, mutual engagement and joint enterprise.
A shared repertoire refers to ways of doing things, using words and tools, as well as
concepts that the community has produced or adopted, throughout its history, that can
be reified in shared histories and documents. However, gathering people who share
a history in a room with a set of tools and documents does not necessarily mean that
a CoP exists. A CoP is also characterised by the relations and the mutual engagement that
are organised around the group’s tasks. Finally, joint enterprise is what the CoP is set to
do, which is negotiated within the group. According to Wenger (1998), learning in
practice therefore includes these three processes for the community: (1) evolving forms
of mutual engagement; (2) understanding and tuning its enterprise; and (3) developing its
repertoire, styles and discourses.
Participation in a social learning community also requires these three modes of
belonging: engagement, imagination and alignment (Wenger 2000). To distinguish
among these modes, Wenger describes engagement as doing things together and
producing artefacts, and in the ways in which the community members engage with
one another also shapes their experiences of who they are. For an individual starting
a new job, this means engaging in daily meetings and practices in the workplace.
However, for a community to learn a new way of working, this might entail engaging in
novel ways of working together. It might be said that engagement is the easiest mode of
belonging. In contrast, imagination requires a person to create images of oneself and the
communities beyond the existing and situated reality in which one participates to orient
oneself in the world. Finally, alignment entails a mutual process of coordinating local
activities with other processes to achieve community goals.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 415

As an example, becoming a teacher means that one participates in the daily school
practices by engaging with colleagues to gain experiences as a teacher. Moreover,
because a teacher is unable to engage with all teachers in the world, the mode of
imagination enables one to identify with the teacher community at large. A group of
teachers might then collaborate with a local environmental organisation to teach their
students about environmental issues, which would in turn require alignment between the
two communities (the teachers and the environmental organisation) to achieve their
mutual goals.
Wenger’s (1998) theoretical landscape has been criticised for being empirically
untested (cf. Wubbels 2007). Subsequently, the theory’s adoption in research has also
been criticised for using only parts of the concepts from the theory and thus not using its
full potential (Smith, Hayes, and Shea 2017). In the present case, the three dimensions of
a CoP are used to analyse and describe the development of a PLC and to test them
empirically. Additionally, the three modes of belonging are used to interpret the results.

Design and methods

The context
The study is designed as a case study of an upper secondary school in Sweden. The
selection of the school is based on the premises of the interest in and the organisation for
development work and action research; thus, it can be considered a convenient sampling.
As an independent school, it started in the academic year 2014/2015, and since the
beginning, it has had an organisation for teachers to work collectively on school improve­
ment. The teachers hold a 75-minute weekly meeting, where they exclusively work on
their development projects through action research. They are divided into two learning
groups – the Monday and the Friday groups – each with eleven participants (Table 1).
Although most group members are trained teachers, some have not completed teacher
education, and three are in the process of completing their teacher training. The names
used here are pseudonyms, and all participants have signed a letter of consent, with the
possibility to withdraw from the study at any time.
Action research was first introduced in the school in the spring of 2015 as a way to
conduct development work in practice. In the fall of 2017, the school started a one-year
educational programme in cooperation with the University of Gothenburg, which aimed
to learn about action research and how to conduct it in order to understand and improve
educational practice. The programme was arranged as dialogue conferences (Gustavsen
2001; Lund 2008) that included four meetings with readings and work to do locally in
between the meetings. Among the many approaches to action research, the one under­
taken by the teachers in this study could be best described as classroom action research,
which is defined as ‘involv[ing] the use of qualitative modes of enquiry and data collection
by teachers (often with help from academic partners) with a view to teachers making
judgments about how to improve their own practices’ (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon
2014, 11). As a development leader in the school and a doctoral student, the researcher of
this present study had the role of assisting the university representatives during the
conferences and locally, performed the functions of leading the development work
between the conferences and acting as a critical friend to colleagues.
416 P. JOHANNESSON

Method and analysis

The analysis is based on evidence gathered from interviewing 18 teachers who partici­
pated in the learning groups in the school. As shown in Table 1, four teachers in the
Monday group were not interviewed because in two cases, they quit their jobs and in the
other two cases, the interviews were repeatedly postponed. The interviews were held in
2017, and the interview questions were designed to make the teachers describe the
project of the learning group and how they related to one another in terms of doing tasks
together. These 40–60-minute individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.
The decision on using single-interviews instead of group-interviews was taken with the
teachers, not to take time from their weekly meetings in the learning groups. Since
Wenger’s (1998, 2000, 2018) theory is about individual’s participation in the social context,
it was still possible to capture the individual’s statements about participation in the
learning groups and then aggregate these statements to make the social object the
analytical unit.
The analysis was conducted in four steps. The first step involved listening to each
recorded interview as a whole to get a coherent sense of each teacher’s profile and
descriptions of his/her professional role and what he/she does in the school and the
learning group. Second, joint enterprise, mutual engagement and shared repertoire were
deductively identified in relation to each teacher’s description of the improvement work
in the school. When identifying the shared repertoire, this researcher searched for words
and specific ways of doing things that the teachers talked about when describing their
development work in the learning groups, as well as when giving examples of their
previous development work. Mutual engagement was identified in regard to what was
discussed as a collective vis à vis an individual endeavour, when answering the question

Table 1. Participants’ education and years of employment in the school.

Completed teacher Employment in the
Learning group Name education school
Karl Yes Since 2015
Bo Yes Since 2016
Tom No Since 2016
Rickard No Since 2016
Nils Yes Since 2015
Monday group Mats Yes Since 2017
Bill Yes Since 2014
Urban* No 2016–2017
Stefan* Ongoing Since 2014
Irma* Yes 2016–2017
Ingvar* Yes Since 2015
Kerstin Yes Since 2014
Julia Yes Since 2015
Marie Ongoing Since 2016
Björn Yes Since 2015
Harry Ongoing Since 2016
Friday group Ingrid Yes Since 2014
Anki Yes Since 2015
Stina No Since 2016
Monika Yes Since 2016
Elsie Yes Since 2014
Per-Olov Yes Since 2014
*Has not been interviewed
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 417

of what they did together with their colleagues. The joint enterprise was identified
according to the interviewees’ answers to the question about what they did in the
learning groups (i.e., the group project).
In the third step of the analysis, quotations were chosen to exemplify the three
dimensions of a CoP. The quotations were selected based on the notion of multivocality
(Tracy 2010), which in this case means that the dimensions of the CoP are exemplified
through the voices of many in the learning groups. The identified examples were cate­
gorised into those that were more closely related to the local history and those that were
more closely related to the action research field and traditions, as presented in Table 2.
In the fourth step, individual responses from the participants in the two groups were
combined to describe the group qualities based on these three criteria:

(1) Do they seem to have a joint understanding of the enterprise – the task that they
are set to do in the group?
(2) Do they talk about the work as a collective or an individual endeavour, and do they
perceive one another as resources?
(3) Is the repertoire referred to among the members, and do they seem to use it when
working together?

The analysis makes it possible to describe the collective outcome in relation to the three
dimensions of a CoP, as well as to describe possible differences within the groups.

Results
The aspects of the three dimensions of a CoP were identified in both learning groups.
Table 2 provides an overview of the findings, and examples are given as each group is
presented separately and later compared.

The Monday group

In the Monday group as a whole, the enterprise is mainly expressed as undertaking and
completing an action research project, and the local project is somewhat deemphasised
(cf. Table 2), as observed in these answers to the question about the work in the learning
group:

Table 2. Identified aspects in the learning groups in relation to the three dimensions of a CoP.
Joint enterprise Mutual engagement Shared repertoire
Local Action research Local Action research Local Action research
Improving Trying to Introducing Engaging in A created Learning
practice understand newcomers and lesson policy dialogues,
towards the and conduct and contributing and actions, and
school’s action maintaining to one assignment tools; keeping
specific goals research the another’s matrix, a log;
and community action adopted engaging in
developing a research work words such as reflection
culture of time on task
inquiry and downtime
418 P. JOHANNESSON

Well, primarily it is the action research we work with [. . .]; we also discuss educational texts.
(Bo)

Action research, it all seems to be very practical. We all have to find our own area, well,
research area, I guess; that’s what it is, to be able to ah, possibly make improvements in our
own teaching methods and then to be able to share that with others, with all the terminology
that’s in there. (Nils)

These quotes serve as examples of how action research is mentioned as the main project
in the Monday group. However, Karl’s comment below, exemplifies that there are dis­
crepancies in what is seen as the main project within the group. Whereas Nils and Bo put
action research to the fore, Karl emphasises the local improvement areas, as illustrated in
the following quote:

It’s organised reflections, kind of, about the work you are doing [. . .]. You redo, improve it [. . .]
collegial reflections [. . .] this improvement work we do, the action research, is intended to
relate to our improvement areas in the school [. . .]. You support each other and guide each
other in these different kinds of dialogues [. . .]. You can get help to find what you cannot see
yourself, with the help of others [. . .]. You are given relevant questions . . .; we all did learning
dialogues. (Karl)

From Karl’s perspective, the local improvement areas guide the work in the learning
group and action research is ‘intended to relate’ to these areas and contribute, as
a means, to this collective work. He continues by mentioning the repertoire (learning
dialogues) and engagement – in terms of supporting and guiding each other in
dialogues – to undertake the enterprise of improving the prioritised areas in the
school.
Differences in what is mentioned as the project affect the mutual engagement. For
instance, Bill and Mats talk about the project in the learning group as ‘professional
development’, as a place where they find time to discuss pedagogy and what to improve
as teachers. However, regarding cooperation with colleagues, they are more loosely
engaged although in somewhat different ways.
Mats, a newcomer to the profession and recently employed, explains that he would
‘like more guidance about what to do’, that the way that things are done in action
research – to ask one’s own research question about the areas for improvement – is too
difficult, and he would rather be told what to improve. In contrast, Bill, who has worked in
the school since it first opened, talks about the project as coming up with one’s own
improvement area but describes it as a rather individual endeavour:

What we do together, what becomes an asset to me is to be able to discuss the results, my

own reflections, and particularly the occasions when you’re not sure how to go on, to be able
to discuss, ‘What should I do now?’ I haven’t experienced that I have gained so much this year
in the group discussions because I’ve had a very clear idea of what I want to do and what
methods I will use. (Bill)

To Bill, it seems important that his colleagues can help him how to understand his
results and how to proceed with his action research. In this case, when he already knows
what to do, he does not seem to regard his colleagues as resources or himself as
a resource to them. This indicates that the engagement is mainly organised around
the success of everyone’s own action research project. On the other hand, Rickard,
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 419

a newcomer to the group, explains the work in the learning groups as a place ‘to help
each other in different ways’. While the project of the learning group is somewhat vague
to him, he emphasises the cooperation and mentions several ways of doing things
when conducting his action research, such as ‘keeping a log’, which he mentions when
reflecting on the issue of time:

but to structure all that is needed to be done, with your log and all of that, and the practical,
sort of, for me I would need a little bit more time, sort of. (Rickard)

The following quote illustrates the relation between the local enterprise and the action
research enterprise within the Monday group:

What we do is basically, as I interpret it, trying to help each other in different ways, ehm . . .
and that we try to go somewhat in the same direction maybe, with the pedagogical, then
what we do, we do action research, which is also very new to me. (Rickard)

Drawing on the data from the Monday group as a whole shows the enterprise as twofold
and still under negotiation. The project is both described as working together pedagogi­
cally on the local improvement areas (cf. Karl and Rickard), and as doing action research,
with an emphasis on undertaking and completing the individual action research projects
(cf. Bo, Nils and Bill). Hence, the engagement appears to unfold as help and support in one
another’s individual projects. Finally, all members seem to have access to the repertoire,
and they cite examples of how it is used when engaging with one another (e.g., learning
dialogs, reflections).

The Friday group

In this group, most teachers talk about the work as a collective endeavour to improve
instructional practices towards the school’s specific improvement areas and to develop
a culture of inquiry (cf. Table 2). Regarding the dimension of mutual engagement, the
teachers in this group discuss about supporting one another in their dilemmas and
problems in the classroom, sharing thoughts and ideas, and contributing with different
perspectives, as well as introducing newcomers to the community (see Table 2). The local
improvement history and ways of doing things (repertoire) are frequently mentioned and
shared among the participants.
To illustrate how the enterprise of this group appears to be more oriented to the local
project of developing a culture of inquiry, Ingrid talks about the learning group as
performing collective work with two purposes:

That you yourself improve [. . .], but it is also something that we do in the school as a whole –
we grow a culture; we strive towards improving quality all the time. (Ingrid)

This collective endeavour is also found in Monika’s presentation of her view on the
purpose of the learning group:

As I understand, the purpose [of] the learning group is to . . . we have these mutual goals in
the school, to improve, for example, being structured and clear, and feedback . . ., and this is
what we do in the learning groups. We work [on] these improvement areas and how to put
it . . . to practically improve them after the needs that you find in your classroom. (Monika)
420 P. JOHANNESSON

To Monika, the mutual goals for the school is the primary focus. In her description, she
mentions the repertoire related to the school’s history of working on the lesson structure
and clarity. As suggested in her account, these goals also need to be negotiated in relation
to the needs of the students in her classroom. Thus, in addition to the collective
endeavour of improving practice towards the school’s specific goals, there is the issue
of adjusting and renegotiating these goals with the classroom practice. Another group
member illustrates the engagement in the group:

I try out my thoughts because when you think for yourself, it always sounds so good or bad . . . .
You get confirmed, but not only; I’ve learned new concepts. Swedish teachers talk a different
language. It’s exciting when you understand things in different ways [. . .] and if someone is
completely new and dares to talk about their feelings and if someone who has worked many
years dares to talk about their feelings about it [the development work] . . . . I think my
colleagues are very generous . . . . You dare to talk about what they have failed with, too, not
just the success stories. (Anki)

When Anki describes the work in the learning group, she talks about her colleagues as
resources to challenge her thoughts, and she also notes the mutual support between
newcomers and old-timers. Later in the interview, she mentions ‘downtime’ and several
ways of doing things that the teachers have worked on in the learning group, such as
auscultations, interviews and learning dialogues (shared repertoire), as in the following
quote:

We have tried auscultations; we’ve interviewed each other; we’ve read. I like the discussions
about understanding different concepts [. . .]. I like ‘learning dialogues’. I was very happy to
find a method of talking that involves everybody; it really gives you opportunities to express
yourself . . . . When I’m forced into these situations, when I’m supposed to share, well, I like to
listen. Then I feel it’s good for me, but I find it hard . . . well, yes; basically I learn, in our learning
group, that you can cooperate . . . . I learn how to share. (Anki)

The different ways of doing things that Anki mentions in the preceding quote have been
introduced as means to have the teachers engage in one another’s development work
and be critical friends in their action research efforts. As seen in the quote, this ‘new’ way
of working has forced her to learn how to share, and she expresses her feelings about
having to change her ways. Further examples of the relation between old-timers and
newcomers are cited by Harry and Kerstin when discussing the cooperation in the
learning groups from their different perspectives.

Well, [. . .] say you have a problem [. . .]; based on the premises, you are supposed to do
something about it; it creates this . . . [O]ne of the first things I thought about [was] that it felt
really safe to come in and sit down and talk when everybody [has] different problems,
especially when you are new. [. . .] There’s this development curve [. . .]. I’m new. I’m not really
sure what I’m doing, and I do my best, based on my ability. It feels safe, and I want to improve,
and that feels good. (Harry)

In the preceding quote, Harry states that it feels safe to share with his colleagues, and he
sees opportunities for him to develop as a teacher in a safe environment.
Kerstin, who has worked in the school since it first opened and can be considered an
old-timer, starts talking about her new colleagues when sharing her thoughts on the
school history:
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 421

Yes, new colleagues, for example [. . .] we’ve been talking about that [. . .] history; that this is
what we’ve worked with earlier, but I think when you come here as new, then there’s a lot
that’s new. There’s like a history of starting new [. . .]. There’s a thought in the house; we have
learning groups, we have action research, we have . . . . What else [have] we got? Well, it’s not
that easy to just jump in and just get it [. . .], but then again, perhaps you don’t need [an
introduction] because here, now is now . . . so you don’t have to read some history. [B]ut there
are many things we’ve developed that if you’d been [in] your own chamber, then you
probably hadn’t gotten that far. I don’t think so, because we’ve done it together. (Kerstin)

To Kerstin, the collective work seems to have been an important aspect for the school to
have ‘gotten that far’ in its development work. At the same time, she acknowledges that
there might be a lot to grasp and familiarise oneself with as a newcomer in this particular
school. In the previous quote, Harry’s way of talking about his colleagues and the practice
of the learning groups suggests his reliance on his more experienced colleagues to help
him with his improvement efforts. At the same time, observing his colleagues trying to
improve their practices helps him recognise the possibilities for further continuous
personal development. With their different perspectives, Harry and Kerstin exemplify
the mutual engagement organised around the maintenance of the community and the
introduction of newcomers (cf. Table 2).
To the Friday group as a whole, the enterprise seems more focused on local needs, and
building a culture of investigating one’s practice and action research is perceived as
a means to accomplish this. The engagement appears oriented towards introducing
newcomers, maintaining the community, and supporting and challenging one another
when undertaking action research projects. Similar to the Monday group, the repertoire is
shared among the participants and used when collaborating to develop instructional
practices towards the school’s improvement areas.

Comparing the groups: aligning practices

Comparing the two groups, although they work in the same school, the analysis shows
some differences.
For the Monday group, the enterprise primarily seems to involve learning how to
conduct action research. In their efforts to do so, the teachers engage with one another in
the sense of participating in the learning group meetings and helping one another finish
their individual action research projects. Through this work, they have developed
a repertoire that entails words and ways of doing things that come from the field of
action research, as well as the local schools’ previous development efforts.
In the Friday group, the local improvement areas are put to the fore, even though
action research is frequently mentioned when asked what they do in the learning group,
but more so as a means to do the work. The teachers in this group engage in one
another’s work in their collective endeavour to improve their teaching practices, as well
as introduce newcomers and maintain their community. The repertoire is shared among
the participants and contains words and ways of doing things introduced through action
research, along with locally produced documents from previous development work.
Reasoning with Wenger’s (2000) modes of belonging – engagement, imagination and
alignment – might shed some light on the differences within the groups. For the teachers
in these learning groups, engagement entails participating in the teaching practices, as
422 P. JOHANNESSON

well as attending the learning group meetings and performing activities together to
improve their teaching practices. However, improving practice through action research
also requires the act of imagination: to reflect on and critically examine one’s practice and
imagine oneself as a teacher capable of making inquiries into one’s own practice to learn
from it. Additionally, the mode of alignment is required to fine-tune the practice of
teaching with the practice of research. To exemplify this, the differences between the
two groups can be examined.
On one hand, the Friday group comprises more teachers who have worked in the
school since its opening and already bring their experiences from engaging together in
starting the school, as well as from jointly working on school improvement since the
beginning. On the other hand, the Monday group includes four teachers who have not
completed teacher education and one teacher who is a newcomer to the profession. For
these teachers, the act of engagement alone requires them to create experiences as
teachers (in this specific school), as well as teachers who research their own practice. This
can be a time-consuming and difficult task and a probable reason why Mats, a newcomer
who belongs to the Monday group, says that he would ‘rather be told what to do’ for his
action research project, rather than come up with something himself. This indicates an
insufficient alignment between the two practices of teaching and of research. This is
further exemplified by Mats’ explanation that he is now finally through with his education,
where ‘they have tried to teach me for five years what research is’. Now, he just wants ‘to
know how to be a teacher’, which shows his view on the teaching profession as excluding
working in a scientific way. In contrast, Ingrid, who belongs to the Friday group, presents
a somewhat different view when discussing the work in the learning group, which also
exemplifies the three modes of belonging (in brackets):

We grow a culture, we strive towards improving quality all the time, [. . .]. We see teaching as
something that is constantly being improved [alignment]. Action research has helped me see
what I do [imagination], and it feels good to be someone who strives forward, kind of . . .
[imagination]. There’s a lot of affirmation that you’re on the right track and do it right, think
aloud [engagement]. We help each other to formulate research questions and suggest how
you can measure this [engagement]. (Ingrid)

Being an old-timer in the school, already having experiences as a teacher, along with
experiences of doing improvement work with her colleagues, Ingrid fine-tunes the align­
ment between the practices of being a teacher and of developing a culture of inquiry. The
acts of engagement are exemplified as ‘think aloud’ and helping one another formulate
research questions. Using the mode of imagination, she reflects on the community’s work,
where action research has helped her recognise her teaching practices, with the possibi­
lities of becoming someone ‘who strives forward’.

Discussion and conclusions

This study has aimed to describe and deepen the knowledge about the development of
PLCs as teachers meet regularly to improve their practices through action research.
Analytical tools from Wenger’s (1998, 2000, 2018) social theory of learning have been
used in this study to answer questions on how the development of a PLC unfolds in
practice and what this means in relation to teacher learning in practice.
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 423

To answer these questions, the results first show that the teachers in this case have
developed a repertoire that contains the history of previous development work, as well as
words and ways of doing things together that come from the field and traditions of action
research. Examples have been found in the ‘lesson policy’ and ‘the assignment matrix’ (as
presented in Table 2) and in specific words from the action research field and traditions, as
well as structures for dialogues. Furthermore, this repertoire is interrelated with the
mutual engagement and facilitates collaboration, as well as the introduction of new­
comers to the groups. However, the analysis also shows that the enterprise for each group
seems to differ to some extent and is not negotiated among the members, specifically on
whether action research is perceived as a means to improve practice or as the end goal
itself.
Second, its meaning in terms of teacher learning in practice can be summarised as
follows:

(1) Teachers learn by developing their repertoire together, applying new forms of
collaboration (e.g., learning dialogues), creating local policies and documents,
and adding new words and concepts to their repertoire.
(2) Teachers learn by evolving forms of mutual engagement, such as introducing
newcomers and maintaining their group, supporting one another in their action
research projects with different perspectives, and formulating research questions.
(3) Teachers learn by tuning their enterprise and negotiating on the local improve­
ment work with the action research approach. This includes understanding action
research and how to carry it out, as well as aligning the approach to everyday
practice.

Differences in the group qualities found in the Monday and the Friday groups can be
discussed with the help of Wenger’s (2000) different modes of belonging that coexist in
social learning communities. The teachers in this case, while working in the same school,
engaging in their daily work with one another, attending meetings and doing lesson
plans together, are creating experiences of what it means to be teachers in this particular
school. In the learning groups, the teachers also work at the boundaries of another
community, that is, the action research community. Belonging to or becoming
a member of such a social learning community requires the acts of imagination and
alignment. In aligning these practices, the groups negotiate on their enterprises to meet
the local needs. At the time of the interviews, these learning groups were still fine-tuning
their communities to align these practices.
Findings presented in this article suggests that even for schools with an organisation
and time for development work – thus creating the possibilities for engagement – the
novel ways of working bring challenges to the daily work. Consequently, the goals for
learning should be made explicit, particularly those where the content is further from the
teacher, in this case, to work scientifically through action research. As improving practice
through scientific methods has to coexist with the current practice of teaching in schools,
the three modes of belonging (engagement, imagination, alignment) needs to coexist.
Spending too much time reflecting scientifically and analysing practice might detract
from engagement in lesson planning or teaching, among others.
424 P. JOHANNESSON

For schools that hope that making time for teachers’ meetings will result in PLCs, which
in an uncritical way meets the demands on teachers and schools to become scientifically
grounded and to improve students’ results, this article contributes with perspectives to
reflect on when trying to develop a PLC to close the gaps across research, policy and PD
(cf. Dimmock 2016).
As presented in this study, for the individual teacher, learning entails engaging in both
the daily practice of teaching and action research. To master these skills simultaneously
(cf. Wennergren 2016), the acts of imagination and alignment are required, that is,
reflecting on one’s teaching practice and imagining oneself as a teacher with the ability
to improve and align the improvement work with teaching in the classroom. To the more
experienced teachers in this study (who also share a history together), this set of require­
ments seems easier; hence, the mutual engagement appears more organised around
maintaining the community and fine-tuning the practices. Whereas for newcomers,
mutual engagement is mainly organised to support one another in the process of
completing an action research project. For the community, learning in this case includes
developing novel forms of working together that make it easier to align and to fine-tune
the practices, as Anki in the Friday group elaborated on in an earlier quote about the
learning dialogues and auscultations (see p. 17).
Reasoning with the arguments of Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2009), the learning
groups in this presented case could be perceived as means to increase the teachers’ skills
to work scientifically in their daily practice. Although fulfilling the Swedish Education Act’s
requirement to work scientifically, if this is not subordinated to negotiation in schools, the
end goals of action research risk being undermined and unproblematised, which in turn
might lead to action research being adopted as an implementation tool for evidence-
based practice instead of contributing to critical practice and learning (cf. Mockler and
Groundwater-Smith 2015). Thus, for an organisation to support learning, it is important to
do the following tasks: (a) Negotiate and define the end goal(s) for the school (which
might include improving scientific skills and increasing a school’s specific goals). (b)
Define actions needed to achieve these goals (which might include adjusting the orga­
nisation to support teachers in mastering different skills simultaneously). (c) Make the
learning process visible and adjust it when necessary (to introduce new employees and
maintain cooperation in school). Acknowledging that working with scientific methods in
schools is not easily added to the daily routines is the first step.
In conclusion, using theoretical concepts (as in this case) makes it possible to describe
and make visible professional learning in practice: the repertoire that the teachers
develop, how they engage in one another’s work and towards what goals. In accordance
with Noffke’s (2009, 16) recommendation, instead of reinventing action research and
labelling it differently under the broad concept of knowledge-building cycles, this
paper calls for more research that examines knowledge-building in practice, specifically
with the collective as the analytical unit, not just individual teachers. In particular, there is
a need for further studies to explain the learning process of aligning the practice of
research with the daily practice of teaching, for instance, during the critical phase of
analysis. Only then can educational researchers and educators come closer to helping
schools on how to support teacher learning communities to achieve their goals, not to
adopt an action research strategy just to ‘tick the box’ indicating that they work
 EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 425

scientifically.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Peter Johannesson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3150-758X

References
Darling-Hammond, L., and N. Richardson. 2009. “Research Review/teacher Learning: What Matters?”
Educational Leadership 66 (5): 46–53.
Davis, J., C. Clayton, and J. Broome. 2018. “Thinking like Researchers: Action Research and Its Impact
on Novice Teachers’ Thinking.” Educational Action Research 26 (1): 59–74. doi:10.1080/
09650792.2017.1284012.
Dimmock, C. 2016. “Conceptualising the Research–practice–professional Development Nexus:
Mobilising Schools as ‘Research-engaged’ Professional Learning Communities.” Professional
Development in Education 42 (1): 36–53. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.963884.
Groundwater-Smith, S., and N. Mockler. 2009. Teacher Professional Learning in an Age of Compliance:
Mind the Gap. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9417-0.
Gustavsen, B. 2001. “Theory and Practice: The Mediating Discourse.” In Handbook of Action Research:
Participatory Action Research and Inquiry, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 18–26. London:
Sage.
Katz, S., and L.A. Dack. 2014. “Towards a Culture of Inquiry for Data Use in Schools: Breaking down
Professional Learning Barriers through Intentional Interruption.” Studies in Educational Evaluation
42 (September): 35–40. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.006.
Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2014. The Action Research Planner. Doing Critical Participatory
Action Research. Singapore: Springer.
Kennedy, A. 2014. “Understanding Continuing Professional Development: The Need for Theory to
Impact on Policy and Practice.” Professional Development in Education 40 (5): 688–697.
doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.955122.
Kennedy, M.M. 2016. “How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching?” Review of
Educational Research 86 (4): 945–980. doi:10.3102/0034654315626800.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lund, T. 2008. “Action Research through Dialogue Conferences.” In Nurturing Praxis – Action
Research in Partnerships between School and University in a Nordic Light, edited by
K. Rönnerman, E.M. Furu, and P. Salo, 176–192. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mockler, N., and S. Groundwater-Smith. 2015. “Seeking for the Unwelcome Truths: Beyond
Celebration in Inquiry-based Teacher Professional Learning.” Teachers and Teaching 21 (5):
603–614. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.995480.
Møller, J. 1998. “Action Research with Principals: Gain, Strain and Dilemmas.” Educational Action
Research 6 (1): 69–91. doi:10.1080/09650799800200050.
Muijs, D., L. Kyriakides, G. van der Werf, B. Creemers, H. Timperley, and L. Earl. 2014. “State of the
Art – Teacher Effectiveness and Professional Learning.” School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 25 (2): 231–256. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
Noffke, S. 2009. “Revisiting the Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action Research.”
In The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research, edited by S.E. Noffke and B. Somekh, 6–24.
London: SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9780857021021.n2.
426 P. JOHANNESSON

Opfer, V.D., and D. Pedder. 2011. “Conceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning.” Review of
Educational Research 81 (3): 376–407. doi:10.3102/0034654311413609.
SFS [Swedish Code of Statutes]. 2010. Skollag. [Swedish Education Act], 800. Stockholm:
Utbildningsdepartementet.
Skolverket. 2016. “Action Research Improves Quality Work.” Accessed 14 September 2016. http://
www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/forskning/forskolan/relationer-larande/aktionsforskning-
forbattrar-systematiskt-kvalitetsarbete-1.225646
Smith, S.U., S. Hayes, and P. Shea. 2017. “A Critical Review of the Use of Wenger’s Community of
Practice (Cop) Theoretical Framework in Online and Blended Learning Research, 2000–2014.”
Online Learning 21 (1): 209–237. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i1.963.
Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas. 2006. “Professional Learning
Communities: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Educational Change 7 (4): 221–258.
doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
Tracy, S. 2010. “Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research.”
Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10): 837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121.
Warren Little, J. 2002. “Locating Learning in Teachers’ Communities of Practice: Opening up
Problems of Analysis in Records of Everyday Work.” Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (8):
917–946. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00052-5.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E. 2000. “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems.” Organization 7 (2):
225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002.
Wenger, E. 2018. “A Social Theory of Learning.” In Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning
Theorists . . . in Their Own Words, edited by K. Illeris, 219–228. London and New York: Routledge.
Wennergren, A.-C. 2016. “Teachers as Learners – With a Little Help from a Critical Friend.”
Educational Action Research 24 (2): 260–279. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1058170.
Wubbels, T. 2007. “Do We Know a Community of Practice When We See One?” Technology, Pedagogy
and Education 16 (2): 225–233. doi:10.1080/14759390701406851.