Teachers as learners : a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Teachers as learners : a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Näykki, Piia; Kontturi, H.; Seppänen, V.; Impiö, N.; Järvelä, S. Näykki, P., Kontturi, H., Seppänen, V., Impiö, N., & Järvelä, S. (2021). Teachers as learners : a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(4), 495-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1904777 2021 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjet20 Journal of Education for Teaching International research and pedagogy ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20 Teachers as learners – a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi Piia Näykki, H. Kontturi, V. Seppänen, N. Impiö & S. Järvelä To cite this article: Piia Näykki, H. Kontturi, V. Seppänen, N. Impiö & S. Järvelä (2021): Teachers as learners – a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi, Journal of Education for Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2021.1904777 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1904777 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 29 Mar 2021. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Teachers as learners – a qualitative exploration of pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community OpenDigi Piia Näykki a,b , H. Kontturi b , V. Seppänen b , N. Impiö b and S. Järvelä b a Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyvaskyla, Finland; b Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland ABSTRACT This study explores pre-service and in-service teachers’ experiences in working as a learning community. Pre-service teachers (N = 60) and teacher educators (N = 9) from a Finnish university and inservice teachers (N = 27) from four local comprehensive schools worked together over six months. The teachers-as-learners continuous learning model was created and implemented in practice. The participants’ written reflections were collected to explore what they learned, what challenges they experienced and how they would further develop the model. The results showed that the pre-service and the in-service teachers reflected on their work somewhat differently. The former experienced learning group working, selfregulation, and pedagogic and didactic skills. The latter learned group working skills and new teaching methods. Both groups of teachers experienced challenges, one of which was named role confusion. The pre-service teachers experienced role confusion in terms of guided versus independent work. The in-service teachers’ role confusion led them to wonder whether they should provide the pre-service teachers with expert support or participate as equal group members. Both pre-service and in-service teachers reflected that the model would require active involvement of all teachers and teacher educators involved. The results provide implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 31 January 2020 Accepted 20 February 2021 KEYWORDS Continuous learning; inservice teachers; learning community; pre-service teachers; teacher education Introduction There is growing interest in developing teacher education to respond to the needs of 21st-century learning, such as skills in strategic learning, critical thinking and collaboration (Binkley et al. 2012). These skills are important, not only to enable pre-service teachers to study and work in their learning and working communities, but should also be enhanced for their prospective pupils’ learning (Kramarski and Kohen 2017). Another current aim in teacher education is to provide better opportunities for pre-service and in-service teachers, as well as teacher educators, to create collaborative learning communities in support of teachers’ continuous professional development (Harlow and Cobb 2014). The concept of continuous learning is not new, but it is newly important in representing CONTACT Piia Näykki [email protected] JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1904777 © 2021 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 medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. a lifelong learning ideology and combining formal and informal educational opportunities. While educational political discussions about continuous learning have been active, minor attempts have been made to develop preservice and in-service teacher education practices accordingly. Teachers and teacher education are in a key position to educate young citizens. If they model active learning (Prince 2004), including self-regulated and collaborative learning, as their own approaches to learning, they are also more likely to apply such approaches to their teaching (Dembo 2001; Häkkinen et al. 2017, 2019; Kramarski and Kohen 2017). It is often assumed that when teacher education students graduate, they are able to practise active, self-regulated and collaborative learning as a central component of their teaching practices almost naturally (Häkkinen et al. 2017). However, research has shown that active learning skills are not a central aspect of teacher education (Yuan and Lee 2015). Many teacher education students are still the products of a teacher-led traditional school culture where students are less active and knowledge acquisition skills are mainly emphasised. In this paper, it is argued that pre-service and in-service teachers need support in adopting ideas on active learning, similar to their need for support in adopting any other pedagogic principles and practices. There is a lack of studies that target how active learning and self-regulated learning (SRL) could be made more visible in teacher education practices and ways of organising collaboration between pre-service and in-service teachers (Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018; Kyndt et al. 2016). This article responds to this challenge by presenting a qualitative case study of teachers as learners in a continuous learning community. The study illustrates how the teachers’ learning community was created and describes how pre-service and in-service teachers experienced working and learning in such a community. Theoretical framework Self-regulated learning as a theoretical conceptualisation for active and continuous learning Continuous learning considers individuals as self-regulated and pro-active agents who perceive self-development as a fundamental part of their own lives. Naturally, continuous learning can partly be formal education in institutions, with diplomas and study credits, but more often, it is regarded as an attitude in life and a system of informal learning (Richter et al. 2011). In turn, active learning is a combination of will, skill and understanding to self-direct and guide a person’s own learning and working in pedagogic contexts (Drew and Mackie 2011; Prince 2004). Continuous and active learning can thus be viewed under the theoretical conceptualisation of SRL. By definition, SRL views learning as an active process where learners set their own goals, monitor their own progress towards the goals and make changes when needed, either by reformulating the goals or by using learning strategies (Pintrich 2000; Schunk and Greene 2017; Zimmerman 2000). In the SRL theory, motivation and cognitive learning strategies are not perceived as learner traits but emphasised as part of a dynamic and contextually bound process that can be learned and brought under the learners’ control (Zimmerman 2000). Previous studies have shown that actively self-regulating pre-service teachers use a wide variety of activities in their learning (Vermunt and Endedijk 2011). For example, active regulators 2P. NÄYKKI ET AL. reflect more deeply on the learning process, set goals and plans for learning and acknowledge their own active role in the process (Endedijk et al. 2012). In this paper, it is argued that to realise the opportunities for continuous learning, learners need to have a set of learning skills to be actively in control of their own learning process, as well as the will to make use of those skills and learning opportunities. In other words, the skill and the will to engage in active SRL set the stage for continuous learning. Therefore, to enhance continuous learning opportunities in the teacher education context, it is essential to characterise pre-service and in-service teachers as self-regulated learners (Dembo 2001; Endedijk et al. 2012; Kramarski and Kohen 2017; Randi 2004). Teacher community as an arena for practising active and continuous learning Everyday school working environments are regarded as important informal contexts for teachers’ learning and professional development (Grosemans et al. 2015; Hoekstra et al. 2009; Kyndt et al. 2016; Richter et al. 2011). In these communities, teachers can discuss and collaborate by sharing information, knowledge and experiences; providing and receiving advice and help; and observing, reflecting on, modelling and adjusting their learning and working practices accordingly (Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018). Kyndt et al. (2016) characterise the following typology of informal activities as continuous learning opportunities: interacting and discussing with others, learning from others, reflecting in/on action, experimenting, engaging in extracurricular activities and searching for solutions to encountered difficulties. All these everyday activities provide opportunities for teacher collaboration and building up professional learning communities. There is no universal definition of professional learning communities, but there is a broad consensus to view such communities as a group of people sharing and critically observing their practices in growth-promoting ways (Mitchell and Sackney 2000; Stoll et al. 2006; Toole and Louis 2002). For example, Hord (1997) describes the goals of professional learning communities as enhancing professionals’ effectiveness for the students’ benefit. His definition considers the role of the communities as continuous inquiry and improvement drawing attention to the potential that a group of people working together can mutually enhance each other’s and students’ learning as well as school development (Stoll et al. 2006). Berliner’s (2001) model for teacher professional development is useful in exploring continuous learning opportunities in teaching practices. Based on studies about the differences between expert and novice teachers, this model points out that the strategies and the habits of expert teachers differ from those of less experienced teachers. According to Berliner (2001), a teacher progresses from ‘novice’ via ‘advanced beginner’ to ‘competent’ and reaches higher levels of expertise when developing a holistic perception of teaching situations at the level of a ‘proficient’ teacher. The final stage of teacher development is the level of an ‘expert’, where the teacher masters not only extensive and sophisticated knowledge of the subject matter to be taught but also knowledge of teaching, as well as acquires skills to learn different things from both more experienced and less experienced teachers (Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018). For example, Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen (2018) studied how and what teachers learned from their older and younger colleagues. The teachers reported learning innovative teaching methods and information and communication JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 3 technology (ICT) skills from their younger colleagues, whereas classroom management skills and community building were mentioned as learned mainly from their older colleagues (Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018). However, attitudes and ways of being a teacher were learned equally from younger and older colleagues. The current research literature and teacher education practices implement different terminology to refer to in-service teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ learning communities. Whereas in-service teachers’ communities are more often described as professional learning communities, pre-service teachers’ community learning opportunities are developed, for example, as a part of their teaching practicum and mentoring programmes. However, previous studies have indicated that teachers may benefit from working together with teachers from various career levels (including pre-service teachers and teacher educators). Therefore, one of the main ideas in this paper is to create learning communities for preand in-service teachers to learn from and with each other. Aim and research questions This study aims to explore how teacher education can be developed by creating a continuous learning model that supports pre-service and in-service teachers as active, self-regulated and collaborative learners. The research questions are as follows: What did pre-service and in-service teachers learn when working as a learning community? What challenges did pre-service and in-service teachers experience during their work? How would pre-service and in-service teachers further develop the continuous learning model OpenDigi? Methods Participants and procedure This study is part of the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture developmental project where a continuous learning model (OpenDigi) was created and implemented in practice with pre-service and in-service teachers. The acronym OpenDigi comes from the project’s Finnish name, translated as ‘Teachers in a learning community for learning skills and digital pedagogical skills’. The aim was to provide an opportunity for pre-service and inservice teachers to work together and learn from each other. The participants comprised pre-service teachers (N = 60) and teacher educators (N = 9) from a Finnish university and in-service teachers (N = 27) from four local comprehensive schools (Table 1). In the Finnish context, a comprehensive schooling includes teaching primary school (grades 1–6) and upper comprehensive school (grades 7–9). Teacher education students graduate either as Table 1. The number of pre-service and in-service teachers in the continuous learning community. Community 1 Community 2 Community 3 All In-service teachers (primary school) 10 8 9 27 Pre-service teachers 20 20 20 60 Teacher educators 3 3 3 9 Number of groups 6 3 4 13 Number of groups’ projects 12 8 7 27 4P. NÄYKKI ET AL. primary school teachers or, for teaching in upper comprehensive schools, as subject teachers. For reasons of clarity, we have used both terms in this article since the inservice teachers in this study were primary school teachers in comprehensive schools. The pre-service teachers were at the second year of their teacher education studies. They did not have experience of practising as a classroom teacher. Only a few had worked in schools as assistant teachers before or during their studies, but they had not done their first teacher education practice period. Teacher education in Finland Teacher education students in Finland study a 5-year master’s degree in education. The master’s degree certifies that they can work as primary-school classroom teachers in first through sixth grades (students aged 6–12 years). In practice, teacher education in Finland comprises two degrees: Bachelor of Arts (Education), 180 ECTS credits, and Master of Arts (Education), 120 ECTS credits. The bachelor’s degree includes the first three years of education. All teacher-education programmes contain the following study units: communication studies and orientation, basic studies of education, intermediate studies of education, multidisciplinary studies in subjects, advanced studies in education, and minor subject studies. Teaching and learning methods within Finnish teacher-education programmes vary from large auditorium lectures to working in small groups and individually. Programmes include self-study courses, written exams, and portfolio assignments. Face-to-face learning, as well as online and blended learning environments, are all used in Finnish teachereducation programmes. The teacher education studies also include teacher training at university training school. Teacher training systems have been regarded as a very beneficial for pre-service teachers’ pedagogical skill development as well as their teacher identity formation. However, the system has also been criticised for not giving a realistic view of the teaching profession and ordinary school life. Therefore, some recommendations have been made to create opportunities to practise in local schools, in addition to teacher training schools. Case study description: OpenDigi – continuous learning community The participants of this case study (pre-service teachers, in-service teachers and teacher educators) worked together as a learning community over six months. The main goal of their working was to engage to group work in order to learn from each other and to support one another. In practice, they worked together to develop a project where they plan and implement lessons for pupils in real school practices. Groups comprised preand in-service teachers and they followed a specific working structure, which was named the OpenDigi model. The work of each group was divided to five tasks, which included 1) initial seminar, 2) a shared goal formulation for the developmental project, 3) planning the project for school practice, 4) project implementation in real school life and 5) the project’s outcomes presentation in the final seminar (Figure 1). The group work started in the initial seminar where all participants gathered to build their identity of being part of a continuous learning community. The second phase of the group work focused on defining the common goal for development. The task included reading JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 5 selected parts of the Finnish core curriculum for comprehensive schools. The pre-service teachers reflected on their previous studies and formulated ten principles of good learning. The in-service teachers constructed a shared understanding of what goals of the curriculum were challenging in their schools’ practices. During the third phase, the in-service and the pre-service teachers worked together to compare how the identified challenges and good learning principles could be integrated and what kind of common goal could be pursued by the community for the project. The community was here split into development groups, each comprising one to two teachers and four to eight student teachers. The decision to engage working in smaller working groups was to provide better conditions for everyone to active participation, since a large community can be challenging when the task is to plan and conduct new types of activities. The decision for small groups was practice based, but relied also on the studies of group interaction and collaborative learning (Häkkinen et al. 2017; Näykki et al. 2014). After the community’s common development goal was set, each group created its own question and plans for the two practical implementations (the goal and recommended solution) in schools (Figure 2). The groups themselves defined a specific theme that they wanted to enhance during their lessons, for example pupils’ learning skills, self-directed learning and inquiry-based learning. Groups had the freedom to decide how often they wanted to meet, whether they would meet face-to-face, or whether they would work together remotely using technological tools and environments. In the final seminar, the groups presented their developmental projects’ implementations. Data collection and analysis This qualitative study focused on the participants’ (N = 60 pre-service teachers, N = 27 primary school teachers) views about and experiences in participating in a continuous learning community. The data were collected from the completed open-ended questionnaires with Figure 1. Model for pre-service and in-service teachers’ continuous learning community. 6P. NÄYKKI ET AL. the questions listed here below. The questions asked the participants to reflect 1. How did you experience working as a continuous learning community? 2. How did your group perform? 3. Describe your group’s teaching experiment in practice. 4. How was the active learning principles (i.e. will and skill to guide oneself that leads to transformation of pedagogical behaviour and thinking) present in your group’s working? 5. Did your group experience challenges; if yes, what kinds of challenges you experienced? 6. How did you overcome the challenges? 7. Did you get help when it was needed? 8. How would you develop the experienced continuous learning model further? The open-ended questionnaire was selected as a form of a data collection method to capture participants’ experiences after working together over six months period (Schwarz and Oyserman 2001; Schuman and Presser 1979; Tourangeau et al. 2016). This is because we wanted to provide them time to reflect on their interpretations and not, for example, to interfere with them while working. In other words, it was not the focus of this study to explore their on-going working processes in detail. The pre-service teachers (in their small groups, N = 21 groups) responded collectively to the questionnaire, and the in-service teachers responded individually. Permission for the data collection was obtained from the participants, as well as from the faculty dean and the school principals, according to the official guidelines in the Finnish context. A data-driven content analysis was conducted (Coffey and Atkinson 1996; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). In practice, all the written responses to the open-ended questionnaire were moved to the analysis programme nVivo. The first phase of the analysis involved careful reading and taking notes (Hickey and Kipping 1996). Next, the authors discussed the data Figure 2. Example of the developmental project. JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 7 power relationships are present in participants’ ways of working together. Thus, if socalled true collaboration could be achieved, attention should be paid to the ever-present nature of power within the complex power-dynamics of teacher education. Power is present, but often hidden in complex networks of relationships and structures, and becomes visible as thoughts, words and deeds of participants in communities and groups (Coleman and Voronov 2003; Hardy and Phillips 1998). Therefore, it needs to be acknowledged that power may restrict reciprocal and equal participation in group work. Despite the challenges of participation, both groups of teachers described having learned new things during the initiative and from each other. This study enabled the preservice teachers to learn about school practices and group working skills, to develop their own teacher identity and teaching skills, as well as deal with content-related issues. The inservice teachers also explained that they learned new teaching methods, content and skills to work as a group. This initiative also allowed the in-service teachers to start and deepen their discussions about their schools’ development. This study’s results are in line with Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen (2018) findings that teachers with less experience and with more experience could learn from each other but often learned different things. Similarly, our study shows that the more experienced teachers learned new and innovative teaching methods from less experienced teachers. Furthermore, Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen (2018) study found that classroom management skills were more often learned from more experienced teachers. Likewise, in our study, the pre-service teachers described learning classroom and school practices from the more experienced in-service teachers. One important aspect that the pre-service teachers learned was SRL (Kramarski and Kohen 2017; Niemi and Nevgi 2014; O’Grady, Mooney Simmie, and Kennedy 2013), which they described as challenging for them. Taking more responsibility for their own learning and working was something that they did not experience from their previous educational practices and was thus experienced as frustrating from time to time. In this study, it is argued that for teachers to be able to support self-regulated learners, they themselves need experiences in regulating their own learning and working (Häkkinen et al. 2019; Kramarski and Kohen 2017). Taking a different kind of responsibility was also challenging for the in-service teachers, as they described having experienced role confusion and not knowing how they were expected to participate in the collaborative learning process. They could not transform their previous experience from supervisors of student teachers to collaborators, and group work was sometimes mistakenly regarded as guiding teaching practice. It can be concluded that previous experiences naturally guide people’s behaviour in different situations; thus, work practices and cultures are difficult to change (Grosemans et al. 2015). Therefore, more emphasis should be placed on how previous experiences can be transformed as new assets for working together with people who have either less or more, and different kinds of experiences. Interestingly, when the participants were asked how they would further develop this model, all of them requested more active engagement from all: from themselves, as well as from other participants (Niemi and Nevgi 2014; O’Grady, Mooney Simmie, and Kennedy 2013). The question remains: ‘How can this active engagement be enhanced and supported during the learning and working process?’ In this study, it is argued that teacher development does not occur solely in formal professional development activities; rather, there are many potential spaces for learning in daily practices and discussions among colleagues with various previous experiences (Grosemans et al. 2015). Furthermore, the development of 14 P. NÄYKKI ET AL. professional attitudes and professional identity is a lifelong process that is reciprocally influenced by older and younger generations (Beltman et al. 2015; Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018). This means that both parties learn from each other about the fundamental question, ‘Who am I as a teacher?’ (Gallchóir, O’Flaherty, and Hinchion 2018; Timoštšuk and Ugaste 2010). Our findings confirm identity construction as a strongly social process (Harlow and Cobb 2014; Izadinia 2015). This means that an individual’s identity is positioned against those of others. This is visible in this study, with the in-service teachers positioning themselves as ‘us’ at different stages of ‘our’ developmental process compared to the pre-service teachers. A similar type of positioning is visible in the pre-service teachers’ reflections on themselves as students who can ask for support from the teacher. Issues of power between the different groups in the community are emerging here and it requires further exploration among communities of learners in educational institutions. We acknowledge the limitations of this study. We implemented an open-ended questionnaire as an instrument in a data collection. This was because our aim was to capture participants’ experiences after working together over six months period. We wanted to provide some time for them to reflect on their interpretations and therefore we did not, for example, apply process-oriented approaches that would have targeted what was happening within group interactions. However, in future studies the process-oriented approach and more versatile data collection methods could be implemented to complement participants’ experiences and interpretations with a real interaction processes to draw a more comprehensive picture of preand in-service teachers collaborative communities. In this study, preand in-service teacher groups had the freedom to decide how often they wanted to meet, whether they met face-to-face or whether they worked together using technological tools and environments. In other words, this was planned and organised by themselves. When and how the groups met is naturally one important aspect that future studies could consider further, and thus the lack of this information is regarded as a limitation in this study. It is argued that both pre-service and in-service teachers should be provided with opportunities for versatile learning experiences to engage in learning communities that include participants at various stages of their teaching careers. This has at least two benefits: first, it affords natural opportunities for teacher educators and in-service teachers to practise continuous learning; second, this makes continuous and active learning more visible for current and future teachers (Berliner 2001; Geeraerts, Tynjälä, and Heikkinen 2018). Thus, the opportunities should be better utilised in teachers’ professional development and in teacher education programmes (Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop 2004; Yuan and Lee 2015). Teacher educators were regarded as important participants in this study. However, we did not succeed in collecting their experiences as an empirical data set. Therefore, this study concludes by challenging future research to explore how true learning communities among pre-service and in-service teachers could be created and supported, as well as how teacher educators could also be active members of such communities. Further research is needed to explore different teacher groups’ reflections of working together as a learning community and to foster teachers’ continuous learning and professional development. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 15 Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This work was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [grant number OKM/62/ 523/2017]. ORCID Piia Näykki http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2931-704X S. Järvelä http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6223-3668 References Andrews, D., and M. Lewis. 2007. “Transforming Practice from Within: The Power of the Professional Learning Community.” In Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas, edited by L. Stoll and K. S. Louis. 132–147. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Beijaard, D., P. C. Meijer, and N. Verloop. 2004. “Reconsidering Research on Teachers’ Professional Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2): 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001. Beltman, S., C. Glass, J. Dinham, B. Chalk, and B. Nguyen. 2015. “Drawing Identity: Beginning PreService Teachers’ Professional Identities.” Issues in Educational Research 25 (3): 225–245. Berliner, D. C. 2001. “Learning about and Learning from Expert Teachers.” International Journal of Educational Research 35 (5): 463–482. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6. Binkley, M., O. Erstad, J. Herman, S. Raizen, M. Ripley, M. Miller-Ricci, and M. Rumble. 2012. “Defining Twenty-First-Century Skills.” In Assessment and Teaching of 21st-Century Skills, edited by P. Griffin, B. McGaw, and E. Care, 17–66. New York: Springer. Coffey, A., and P. Atkinson. 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Coleman, P., and M. Voronov. 2003. “Power in Groups and Organizations.” In International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, edited by M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, and K. G. Smith, 229–254. West Sussex: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470696712.ch12. Dembo, M. 2001. “Learning to Teach Is Not Enough—Future Teachers Also Need to Learn How to Learn.” Teacher Education Quarterly 28 (4): 23–35. Drew, V., and L. Mackie. 2011. “Extending the Constructs of Active Learning: Implications for Teachers’ Pedagogy and Practice.” The Curriculum Journal 22 (4): 451–467. doi:10.1080/ 09585176.2011.627204. Endedijk, M., J. Vermunt, N. Verloop, and M. Brekelmans. 2012. “The Nature of Student Teachers’ Regulation of Learning in Teacher Education.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (3): 469–491. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02040.x. Gallchóir, C. O., J. O’Flaherty, and C. Hinchion. 2018. “Identity Development: What I Notice about Myself as a Teacher.” European Journal of Teacher Education 41 (2): 138–156. doi:10.1080/ 02619768.2017.1416087. Geeraerts, K., P. Tynjälä, and H. L. T. Heikkinen. 2018. “Inter-Generational Learning of Teachers: What and How Do Teachers Learn from Older and Younger Colleagues?” European Journal of Teacher Education 41 (4): 479–495. doi:10.1080/02619768.2018.1448781. Grosemans, I., A. Boon, C. Verclairen, F. Dochy, and E. Kyndt. 2015. “Informal Learning of Primary School Teachers: Considering the Role of Teaching Experience and School Culture.” Teaching and Teacher Education 47: 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.011. Häkkinen, P., S. Järvelä, K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, A. Ahonen, P. Näykki, and T. Valtonen. 2017. “Preparing Teacher-Students for Twenty-First-Century Learning Practices (PREP 21): A Framework for 16 P. NÄYKKI ET AL. Enhancing Collaborative Problem-Solving and Strategic Learning Skills.” Teachers and Teaching 23 (1): 25–41. doi:10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772. Häkkinen, P., T. Virtanen, A. Virtanen, P. Näykki, J. Pöysä-Tarhonen, M. Niilo-Rämä, and S. Järvelä. 2019. “Finnish Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Strategic Learning Skills and Collaboration Dispositions.” Journal of Education for Teaching. doi:10.1080/02607476. 2019.1708628. Hardy, C., and N. Phillips. 1998. “Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Organizational Domain.” Organization Science 9: 217–230. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.217. Harlow, A., and D. J. Cobb. 2014. “Planting the Seed of Teacher Identity: Nurturing Early Growth through a Collaborative Learning Community.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 39 (7): 70–88. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.8. Hickey, G., and C. Kipping. 1996. “Issues in Research. A Multi-Stage Approach to the Coding of Data from Open-Ended Questions.” Nurse Researcher 4: 81–91. doi:10.7748/nr.4.1.81.s9. Hoekstra, A., F. Korthagen, M. Brekelmans, D. Beijaard, J. Imants, and V. J. Marsick. 2009. “Experienced Teachers‘ Informal Workplace Learning and Perceptions of Workplace Conditions.” Journal of Workplace Learning 21 (4): 276–298. doi:10.1108/13665620910954193. Hord, S. M. 1997. Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hsieh, H.-F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687. Izadinia, M. 2015. “A Closer Look at the Role of Mentor Teachers in Shaping Preservice Teachers’ Professional Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 52: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.003. Kramarski, B., and Z. Kohen. 2017. “Promoting Preservice Teachers’ Dual Self-Regulation Roles as Learners and as Teachers: Effects of Generic Vs. Specific Prompts.” Metacognition and Learning 12 (2): 157–191. doi:10.1007/s11409-016-9164-8. Kyndt, E., D. Gijbels, I. Grosemans, and V. Donche. 2016. “Teachers’ Everyday Professional Development: Mapping Informal Learning Activities, Antecedents, and Learning Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research 86 (4): 1111–1150. doi:10.3102/0034654315627864. Mitchell, C., and L. Sackney. 2000. Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Näykki, P., S. Järvelä, P. Kirschner, and H. Järvenoja. 2014. “Socio-emotional Conflict in Collaborative learning—A Process-oriented Case Study in a Higher Education Context.” International Journal of Educational Research 68: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001. Niemi, H., and A. Nevgi. 2014. “Research Studies and Active Learning Promoting Professional Competences in Finnish Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 43: 131142. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006. O’Grady, A., G. Mooney Simmie, and T. Kennedy. 2013. “Why Change to Active Learning? Pre-Service and In-Service Science Teachers’ Perceptions.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37: 35–50. doi:10.1080/02619768.2013.845163. Pintrich, P. R. 2000. “The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning.” In Handbook of SelfRegulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 451–502. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Prince, M. 2004. “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research.” Journal of Engineering Education 93 (3): 223–231. doi:10.1002/j.21689830.2004.tb00809.x. Randi, J. 2004. “Teachers as Self-Regulated Learners.” Teachers College Record 106 (9): 1825–1853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00407.x. Richter, D., M. Kunter, U. Klusmann, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2011. “Professional Development across the Teaching Career: Teachers’ Uptake of Formal and Informal Learning Opportunities.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (1): 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008. Schuman, H., and S. Presser. 1979. “The Open and Closed Question.” American Sociological Review 44 (5): 692–712. doi:10.2307/2094521. Schunk, D. H., and J. A. Greene. 2017. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. New York, NY: Routledge. JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING 17 Schwarz, N., and D. Oyserman. 2001. “Asking Questions about Behavior: Cognition, Communication, and Questionnaire Construction.” American Journal of Evaluation 22 (2): 127–160. doi:10.1177/ 109821400102200202. 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. Timoštšuk, I., and A. Ugaste. 2010. “Student Teachers’ Professional Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (8): 1563–1570. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.008. Toole, J. C., and K. S. Louis. 2002. “The Role of Professional Learning Communities in International Education.” In Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, edited by K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger. 245-279. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tourangeau, R., H. Sun, F. G. Conrad, and M. P. Couper. 2016. “Examples in Open-Ended Survey Questions” International Journal of Public Opinion Research edw015. advance online access. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edw015 Vermunt, J., and M. Endedijk. 2011. “Patterns in Teacher Learning in Different Phases of the Professional Career.” Learning and Individual Differences 21 (3): 294–302. doi:10.1016/j. lindif.2010.11.019. Yuan, R., and I. Lee. 2015. “The Cognitive, Social and Emotional Processes of Teacher Identity Construction in a Pre-Service Teacher Education Programme.” Research Papers in Education 30 (4): 469–491. doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.932830. Zimmerman, B. J. 2000. “Attaining Self-Regulation. A Social Cognitive Perspective.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 13–30. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 18 P. NÄYKKI ET AL.