Collective learning in primary schools and teacher education institutes

Abstract

Many innovations in education are not completed, even if they are well thought out in advance. One of the main causes is the organization’s lack of learning ability, combined with a shortage of teachers’ and students’ ownership with respect to the renewal of ideas and design. In communities of learners, teachers and students collaborate and learn together in order to shape innovations in their daily practice. Their ability to learn collectively is a key factor in developing a learning organization. So far, insights into how processes of collective learning can be designed effectively, and which critical factors play a role, have been based on limited empirical research. This article’s goal is to contribute to the development of these insights, using the results of a study based on 48 cases of collective learning in communities of learners in primary schools and teacher education institutes. The results suggest that although collective learning rarely takes place in most cases, many outcomes are created that affect all community members. This leads to the conclusion that some participants create outcomes, not only on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of others.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Short description of tools that were used in different phases of the procedure is as follows.

Collective storyline

Used in the phase of evaluation

On a large sheet of paper a graphic was drawn. The horizontal axis represented the chronological course of the process and was divided in intervals, each of those referring to a specific phase in the process of collective learning that actually took place. On the vertical axis, a scale ranging from +3 and to −3 was drawn. The question that the members of the community were asked to answer was ‘What significant experiences, in your mind, were meaningful for reaching the collective ambition?’ For that purpose, the members were asked to write down short descriptions at the appropriate points on the horizontal axis and to rate these experiences on the scale from +3 to −3. Next, the scores were connected with lines, representing the individual members’ perception of the effectiveness of the process. After each of the members had drawn his/her line, the facilitator asked for clarification and challenged the members of the community to collectively interpret these data.

Place mat procedure

Used in the phase of defining ambition

In the middle of a large sheet of paper (the place mat), a rectangular was drawn. From that rectangular lines to side of the sheet of paper were drawn, resulting in multiple fields, surrounding the rectangular. Each community member was asked to write down his/her individual ambition with regard to learning in the classroom in one of the fields at the side of the place mat in small groups (five members maximum). After that they were invited to have a small-group discussion about their individual ambitions and to look for connections and similarities. Their common ambitions were written down in the rectangular in the middle. Next, the place mats were put at the wall, serving as input for a large-group discussion.

Chalk talk

Used in different phases, for instance deriving consequences

In the middle of a large sheet of paper, which was attached to the wall, a question was put (for instance ‘What consequences do we want to derive from the data?’). The community members were asked to make a collective mind map about this question, by writing words, drawing symbols, writing down questions and connecting to other members’ contributions. This activity was carried out in absolute silence. The purpose of that was to give each member full opportunity to put forward his/her perspective and to comment on other members’ contributions, without fear for criticism or for being overruled by others. When the collective mind map was finished, the facilitator asked for clarification and challenged the members of the community to discuss what was on the mind map and to decide on the consequences to be derived, explicitly linking these consequences to the outcomes of the Interpretation phase.

Appendix 2

Basic psychological needs scale for student teachers (Vermeulen et al. 2012)

• 1. In the teacher education course I often think: ‘I have learned a lot’;

• 2. In the teacher education course I learn relevant new skills;

• 3. When we work together, I learn interesting new things;

• 4. When working together I often think ‘I have learned a lot’;

• 5. In the teacher education course I cannot enough decide about my learning route;

• 6. In the teacher education course I feel free to create a study path that suits me;

• 7. In teachers education course I can learn things that fit my interests;

• 8. When we work together I do not get a chance to determine what I want to learn;

• 9. When we work together my fellow students take me seriously;

• 10. In the teacher education course I get along with my fellow student teachers;

• 11. In the teacher education course I have too little social contacts;

• 12. When we work together fellow students rather not work with me;

• 13. When we work together I do most of the things on my own;

• 14. In the teacher education course I am very much on my own.

These 14 items are rated on a five-point scale (‘Totally agree’, ‘Agree’, Agree/disagree’, ‘Disagree’ and ‘Totally disagree’). The alphas on the subscales for relatedness, competence and autonomy are .641, .726 and .705, respectively.