Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009
Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009
Kougioumtzis & Patriksson 2009
EA CH IN
THEO RY AND PRAC TICE
I~~~o~J!~?c~Zroup
ISSN 1354-0602
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2009, 131–154
Taylor
Teachers
10.1080/13540600802661352
1354-0602
Original
2009
0
1
15
Dr
[email protected]
00000February
KonstantinKougioumtzis
&Article
and
Francis
(print)/1470-1278
Teaching:
2009 theory(online)
and practice
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Introduction
In an era of intensive globalization, Europe occupies a protagonist role as the
European Union (EU) has expanded during recent years. Nowadays, 25 European
nations have common borders, while several countries are negotiating their Union
entrance. During the 1970s and 1980s, the European common agenda was mainly
based on economical cooperation. As socio-economic problems increased in complex-
ity in a more borderless world, member states showed willingness to move towards
more holistic solutions. Contemporary policies target not only economical issues but
also social and cultural harmonization (CoEU, 2001). Within the EU, education is
accepted as an area of high priority, and the establishment of adjusted policies and
common goals is regarded as necessity (CoEC, 2004). This is a quite demanding task
as national schooling systems are different in the various countries and top-down strat-
egies might confront national educational traditions. On the other hand, bottom-up
strategies can help European countries move closer to each other without neglecting
their national heritages. It can be argued that such strategies should involve an upgrad-
ing of the professional role of teachers at schools (Hargreaves, 1994, 1997).
Comparative studies contribute to an understanding of the similarities and differ-
ences between two or more distinct cultures. The main objective of comparative
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
research is not only to understand other cultures but to mirror or reflect on the one’s
own culture using the prism of others (Schriewer, 1999). To put it simply, comparative
studies incorporate the possibility of making the otherness familiar and the familiar
unfamiliar. It should also be stressed that the harmonization of global educational agen-
das and the scrutiny of the teaching enterprise call for multiple comparative accounts
(Judge, 2000; Osborn, 2000). Furthermore, theoretically informed and informing
studies connected to large-scale accounts with several countries and to in-depth descrip-
tions with few countries are needed (Broadfoot, 1999; Chabbott & Elliot, 2003).
During recent decades educational change towards quality provision is increasingly
affixed to the school unit as a professional learning community (Hord, 1997, 2000) and
to teachers’ continuous professional development (Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, &
Evans, 2003; Cordingley & Temperlay, 2006). Furthermore, teachers’ school-based
collegiality, collaboration and cooperation are regarded as key elements in both
community building and development processes. Nowadays, teacher collaboration-
enhancing policies are launching in several countries (Bezzina & Testa, 2005; Brook,
Sawyer, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2007; Meirink, Meijer, & Verloop, 2007); and school-
based teacher collaboration projects have become a topic of febrile educational
research interest (Lavié, 2006; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006;
Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). However, the comparative exploration of school-based
teacher collaboration is rather underdeveloped as large-scale international studies in
general and particularly those on pupils’ attainment monopolize the specific attention
of politicians and the media (Phillips, 1999).
The present article concerns a comparative study of school-based teacher collabo-
ration (SBTC) in Sweden and Greece. The material comes from a bigger project on
working conditions and instructional intentions in primary and secondary schools as
described by Greek and Swedish in-service physical education (PE) teachers. Since part
of the findings have formerly been published (Kougioumtzis, 2006), the article consti-
tutes a meta-analysis utilizing more sophisticated statistical procedures. Furthermore,
focusing exclusively on teacher collaboration facilitates the inclusion of previously
unpublished information.
Background
It can be accepted that the various national schooling systems throughout Europe
have been strongly influenced by classical Greek educational prototypes and the
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 133
indicates a swift turn towards central goals and product orientation. The formation of
local syllabuses and the partial deregulation of subject-time allocation constitute two
concrete implications in everyday school work. Syllabuses represent locally adapted
applications of the central curriculum. The partial school timetable deregulation is
connected to the possibilities given to school units to establish and learners to choose
subjects of specific interest.
The 2003 Greek compulsory school curriculum reform follows several education
restructuring efforts related to university admission. The novel integrated curriculum
promotes a transition towards subject fusion through inter-disciplinarity and cross-
thematic integration (Matsaggouras, 2002). Inter-disciplinarity implies within-subject
efforts to grasp content with a scientific pluralism, while cross-thematic integration
refers to teaching and learning associated to areas of mutual interest among school
subjects. The curriculum reform is accompanied with efforts to restructure primary
schooling introducing the ‘full-day’ school. This form is characterized by an extended
timetable (until 15:30); it is intended to replace the ‘morning’ school (until 13:00).
Furthermore, textbooks throughout compulsory schooling have been changed almost
completely to support inter-disciplinarity and cross-thematic integration. Although the
impact of the extended timetable and the novel textbooks ought to be obvious, it is
difficult to claim distinct implications in everyday schoolwork as research accounts
are rare.
The willingness to make educational change in both Sweden and Greece is
significant, though certain differentiations can be noted with Hargreaves (1997) in
mind. It seems that teachers’ voices are stronger in Sweden, as they can influence
both local syllabus production and timetable formation. On the other hand, the Greek
case represents obvious top-down vision, as the restructuring efforts are combined
with the lowest financial support for education within the EU (OECD, 2002, 2005a).
Expecting teachers to teach as never before but having conventional structures intact
should be regarded as remarkable (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The
Swedish state spends twice as much on education mainly through municipal budgets.
Trust in people is also more clearly stated in the Swedish context, while trust in
processes seems to affect the actions of the Greek central state. Furthermore, it
seems that the interaction between central structures and local cultures runs more
smoothly in Sweden since the State dictates outcomes, leaving certain autonomy to
the periphery. A comprehensive account on the tensions between centre and local
remains a complicated project as modern states can demonstrate sophisticated
134 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
Problem
From the current internationalized global environment, the development of knowledge-
based national economies has emerged and generated novel change pressures on
national schooling systems (Dale, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Whitty, 1997). In
order to advocate fruitful and sustainable changes, policymakers and researchers in
several countries suggest an upgraded role for the local school units (Darling-
Hammond, 2005; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). More specifically, schools
are promoted as professional learning communities (Hord, 1997, 2000) and as work-
places for teachers’ continuous professional development (Cordingley & Temperlay,
2006; Cordingley et al., 2003). According to the community model, managerial-
inspired solutions increase the distance between school and community, jeopardizing
provision quality and school effectiveness (Furman-Brown, 1999). The developmental
example stresses the importance of abandoning the teacher’s traditional transmission
role to become one of change agent within a revitalized school structure. Despite
variations in epistemological approaching, knowledge production, policy suggestions
and action ranking, the two schooling prototypes share a vital area of interest: both
enterprises put teachers at the core of education-enhancing efforts generally and of the
issue of teachers’ school-based collaboration particularly.
The project of school-based teacher collaboration concerns giving up habitual
ways of thinking about schooling and conventional interaction patterns between
school professionals (Barott & Raybould, 1998). Within traditional schooling
systems, vertical hierarchies and positional relations among structures and agents are
connected to highly centralized organizations with clear top-down mentalities and
function. Furthermore, traditional teachers’ almost ritualistic demands on discrete
classroom management and isolated-autonomous occupational status are assumed to
assist professional stagnation and declined output. School-based teacher collaboration
rewards internally developed professional communities with reflective dialogue
among members, deprivatized practices and shared work-responsibility and visions
(Bryk, Camburn, & Louis Seashore, 1999; Wallace & Louden, 2000). The collabora-
tive stance is mainly associated to schools’ innovative capacity and teachers’ profes-
sional growth (Hindin, Morocco, Mott, & Aguilar, 2007). According to Geijsel, Van
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 135
den Berg, and Sleegers (1999), teachers join forces to ensure both function and
innovation at schools. Additionally, improved interaction among teachers might result
in absorbed market-oriented de-schooling policies and consultation of generated
teacher de-professionalization strategies (OECD, 2001, 2005b).
The profoundness of enhanced school-based teacher collaboration can, however,
be associated with nonexistent evidence critics. Allen and Hecht (2004) describe the
collaboration viewpoint in terms of team romance claiming a mismatch between
enthusiasm and modest verification. Reviewing selected research accounts, Allen and
Hecht suggest a lack of clear connections to both improved student outcomes and
elevated teacher group performance. The absence of straight lines between enhanced
teacher collaboration and improved student outcomes is acknowledged elsewhere,
signifying the multifaceted nature of schooling and the importance of multiplied
inquiries in authentic school settings (Hindin et al., 2007; Vescio et al., 2008).
However, teacher collaboration can equitably be connected to several schooling
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
development factors constituting not only a long-term enterprise but a project with
short-term benefits as well (Hindin et al., 2007). Enhanced teacher collaboration (1)
modifies authoritarian instructional cultures towards more student-centred
approaches, (2) facilitates professional development based on teachers’ actual needs
within naturally engaged settings, and (3) increases teachers’ authority regarding not
only school matters but governance issues as well (Bezzina & Testa, 2005; Broadhead,
2001; Hargreaves et al., 2006; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000; Vescio et al., 2008;
Wiggins & Damone, 2006).
Enhanced school-based teacher collaboration has been described as an advanced
stage of the teaching profession succeeding the pre-professional stage and the stage
of the autonomous professionals (Hargreaves, 2000). The collegial nature of the
teaching enterprise can, however, be confronted, as existing research suggests that
collaboration in schools is not only scarce but also difficult to promote and sustain.
According to Brook et al. (2007) teacher collaboration occurs infrequently, mostly
within informal contexts and usually as a result of teachers’ personal initiatives rather
than as structured interaction. Regularly, operating teams, exchanging classes, co-
teaching, peer-coaching or study groups among teachers can cautiously be connected
to regular school environments. On the other hand, collaboration about student-
centred topics, individual student needs and classroom management exist as quite
usual collegial activities. Although effective collaboration fosters change, reduces
professional judgement ambiguity and boosts caring ethics, a knowledge gap is
evident not only in predicting enhanced school-based teacher collaboration but in
describing processes of professional community building at schools (Brook et al.,
2007)
School-based teacher collaboration is promoted in leading models of effective
schooling and upgraded teachers. Although the map of the phenomenon is far from
replete, research has disclosed several benefits in distinct schooling variables and an
outstanding potential for teachers’ professional development. An intensification of
effort is needed, while special attention ought to be given to drawing extensively the
lines between teacher cultures and educational structures. School cultures are impres-
sively interactive with sophisticated associations to both internal and external influ-
ences (Cavanaugh & Dellar, 1997). In order to develop healthy teacher communities,
the teachers’ collaboration mechanism should be spelled out. The current febrile
research interest might generate more comprehensive descriptions combined with an
intensification of comparative efforts.
136 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
Theory
A national educational system refers to both an institution and an organization. As an
institution, schooling is compelled by central State intentions related to the reproduc-
tion of scientific knowledge and societal values. As organizations, schools are
connected to formal structures remarkably influenced by professional traditions. A
variety of agents influence authentic school settings, while tensions between the
central State and teachers can be regarded as a cutting point. Utilizing Bernstein
(1981, 1990, 2000), the central State can significantly determine teachers’ bearing
through complex code processes of classification and framing. The construction of
dichotomies between subjects or between teachers requires a strong classification,
while resolute central steering decreases the autonomy of teaching within a strong
framing procedure. However, Giddens (1991) provides a quite contrastive account,
describing actuality as the sum of self-initiated individual enactment. Consequently,
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Aim
The nature of teachers’ cultures plays a significant role in teachers’ professional
development and in the learning community construction. The latest restructuring
efforts in Sweden and Greece signify moves towards development and community
approaches, respectively. However, research on school-based teacher collaboration is
restricted to a high degree in the first country and severely in the second, while
comparative accounts occur rarely in an international perspective. With these restric-
tions in mind, this article elaborates on school-based teacher collaboration in the two
contexts. More specifically, the first aim is to grasp dimensions of collaboration in
terms of formal collaboration, depersonalized practices and personalized interaction.
The second aim is associated with interconnections of the three dimensions and the
establishment of a model of school-based teacher collaboration.
Method
An internal language of description refers to a theoretical construct, while an external
language is connected to various tools in order to empirically study a phenomenon
(Bernstein, 2000; Morais & Neves, 2001). The internal language of the present article
is connected to the concept of classification, while the external refers to school-based
teacher collaboration. Information has been obtained through three batteries of
questions related to formal cooperation, deprivatized practices and personalized inter-
action. Formal cooperation concerns formal teacher meetings at schools in terms of
scheduled conferring. Deprivatized practices are relevant to cross-subject collaboration
between teachers and issues of classroom collaboration. Personalized interaction brings
up joint efforts to cope with various professional issues mostly during tuition-free time
138 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
Results
Formal cooperation
Formal cooperation (FC) refers to scheduled conferences at schools with teachers from
several or all school subjects as participants. School conferences are commonly initi-
ated by the school leadership in both Sweden and Greece. However, Swedish principals
seem to follow local needs, while the Greek legislature requires a minimum number
of gatherings to discuss at least assessment and promotion. The first context indicates
a trust on people, while variation can occur throughout the country. The essence of obli-
gation in the second context might flatten variability between schools. In this study,
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 139
formal cooperation has been measured utilizing four questions (Appendix 1) associated
to conferring frequency, teachers own participation pattern (degree of activity),
perceived climate (degree of positive reception from other teachers) and absence of
power misuse among teachers (lack of decisions against one’s own interests).
School conferences occur more frequently in Swedish secondary schools than in
both Swedish primary and Greek schools (Table 2). The differences between group
means (FC1) are statistically significant, F(3,1157) = 253.5, p < .001, except for the
variation between the two Greek sets (Dunnett). Furthermore, Swedish teachers
reported significantly better climates during conferences (FC3) than their Greek coun-
terparts, F(3,1157) = 8.5, p < .001, while the means between clusters from the same
country did not vary significantly (Dunnett). However, no differences between the
means of the four groups could be established in matters of participation patterns (FC2)
or power misuse (FC4), F(3,1157) = 2.9, p < .034 and F(3,1157) = 4.0, p < .007,
respectively. A first order model with excellent fit indexes establishes connection
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
between frequency, participation, climate and power misuse related to school confer-
ences (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance matrices). As can be seen in Table 2,
the degree of positive reception from other teachers (FC3) shares the highest common-
ality with the latent variable of formal cooperation taking into account the standardized
regression estimates (SRW).
Brook et al. (2007) describe teacher collaboration as occurring infrequently and
predominantly within informal contexts on the basis of teachers’ personal initiatives.
It seems, though, that this picture is challenged in Swedish lower secondary schools,
as structured teacher cooperation takes place several times a week (Appendix 1; see
also Aili & Brante, 2007). Furthermore, the slimmed Swedish conferring prerequisites
tend to promote more efficiently formal interaction than do the central requirements
in Greece. Differences between the two countries associated to the perceived confer-
ence climate are in line with frequency variation, which might indicate a conferring
know-how accumulated during conferences. The opposite causation in terms of more
frequent conferences when the climate is perceived to be better is also possible.
Deprivatized practices
In the former section, formal cooperation highlights an official type of interaction,
while deprivatized practices (DP) regard joint efforts to plan and carry out each
teacher’s classes, shared lessons or common projects. The Greek curriculum promotes
inter-disciplinarity and cross-thematic integration, stressing collaboration between
teachers in various subjects. In the Swedish context, teachers might be interested in
cooperation to offer attractive products having in mind learners’ rights to exchange
some ordinary classes with extra-curricular activities. For example, teachers in PE,
biology and social sciences can strengthen collaborative efforts to offer ‘Lifestyle’.
Within this article, deprivatized practices have been analysed through four questions
(Appendix 1) connected to joint efforts with teachers in the same subject (DP1), teach-
ers in theoretical subjects (DP2), teachers in practical subjects (DP3) and with
colleagues to plan and carry out events on a school level such as sport days, exhibi-
tions or other themes of general interest (DP4).
PE teachers collaborate with other PE teachers more intensively in lower second-
ary schools than in primary schools, F(3,1157) = 46.4, p < .001. This was expected as
lower secondary schools are usually connected to school units with more than one PE
teacher. In the other three questions, there were statistically significant differences
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
140
FC3 4.09 (.89) 4.16 (.84) 3.88 (.89) 3.87 (.78) 4.03 −.68 .16 .88 .06 GFI 1.00
FC4 3.41 (.95) 3.38 (.94) 3.18 (1.16) 3.17 (1.19) 3.30 −.25 −.55 .51 .04 RMSEA .02
Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Df = Degrees of freedom, SRW = Standardized Regression Weights, SE =
Standard Error.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 141
between Greek and Swedish PE teachers, without any differences between groups
from the same country. More specifically, PE teachers in Sweden collaborate with
other teachers teaching subjects are both theoretical, F(3,1157) = 30.0, p < .001, and
practical (e.g. music), F(3,1157) = 5.2, p < .001, more intensively than their Greek
counterparts. Furthermore, they collaborate at a higher level on a school level (e.g.
sports and field days), F(3,1157) = 13.0, p < .001. However, the level of deprivatized
practices (Table 3) seems to be lower than the level of formal cooperation (Table 2)
in both countries. A first order well-fitting model bonds the four questions into a struc-
ture representing deprivatized practices (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance
matrices).
According to the first order model in Table 3, collaboration with other teachers in
both theoretical (DP2) and practical (DP3) oriented subjects shares the highest
commonality with the construct of deprivatized practices. However, the low weight
(SWR) of deprivatized practices at a school level might raise issues of declined
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
citizenship education in both Sweden and Greece as relevant activities are commonly
associated not only with sport or theatre but with broader issues of intercultural educa-
tion and/or socialization in both countries.
Personalized interaction
Formal cooperation and deprivatized practices focus more or less structured collabo-
rative undertakings. Personal interaction (PI) indicates a degree of professional
intimacy as it is associated with sharing and working together on a private level.
Enhanced school-based teacher collaboration presupposes commitment to emergence,
trust and humility among colleagues (Wallace & Louden, 2000). Such sensitive issues
can be challenged through personalized interaction during tuition-free time rather than
through central mandates and directives. Nonetheless, the structuring of tuition-free
time and teachers’ schedule management remain multifaceted topics (Aili & Brante,
2007). In the present article, personalized interaction has been studied through four
questions (Appendix 1) linked with private dialogues during tuition-free time. More
specifically, the degree of interaction has been obtained through such activities as
sharing individual problems (PI1), supporting colleagues’ considerations (PI2), and
joint dialogues on broader schooling issues with colleagues generally (PI3) and with
colleagues in the same subject particularly (PI4).
The analysis reveals the highest degree of individual practice sharing in lower
secondary schools in Greece, F(3,1157) = 11.0, p < .001. However, differences
between same educational levels are not statistically significant (Bonferroni). The
same pattern displays for not only supporting colleagues generally, F(3,1157) = 6.5,
p < .001, but in dialoguing with colleagues in practical school subjects specifically,
F(3,1157) = 33.9, p < .001. Moreover, the position of Greek lower secondary schools
is stronger in matters of joint dialogues with colleagues regardless of subject,
F(3,1157) = 13.7, p < .001. In this issue, Greek lower secondary teachers reported
significantly more interaction even than their colleagues in the Swedish lower second-
ary school. The four questions can be adequately represented by a well-fitting first
order model (see Appendix 2, variance and covariance matrices).
In Table 4, the item of supporting colleagues (PI2) shares the highest commonality
with the construct of personalized interaction. However, the weights of the other three
items were also rather high, giving the impression not only of a robust construction
but of a highly multifaceted one as well.
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
142
DP2 2.63 (1.02) 2.62 (.99) 2.12 (.97) 2.01 (.94) 2.41 .24 −.82 .78 .03 Df 2
DP3 1.88 (.96) 2.02 (.98) 1.74 (.88) 1.81 (.86) 1.89 1.01 .58 .77 .02 GFI .99
DP4 2.63 (.70) 2.69 (.72) 2.32 (.82) 2.49 (.84) 2.57 .26 .25 .50 .03 RMSEA .07
Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Df = Degrees of freedom, SRW = Standardized Regression Weights, SE =
Standard Error.
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
On the other hand, a second order model represents a better solution as several fit
indexes fulfil estimation requirements (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; Byrne, 2001).
The total teacher sample generated B model (Figure 1) can be applied not only to
the entire sample of teachers (TOT), but to each one of the four groups (SP, SL, GP,
GL) with very good fit estimates (Table 6).
Standardized Regression Weights (loadings) indicate the commonality of first and
Figure 1. School-based teacher collaboration: a multidimensional construct.
FC1
.30
.41 FC2
FC
.77
FC3
.53
FC4
DP1
.52 .36
.79 DP2
.67
SBTC DP
.76
DP3
.51
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
.54
DP4
PI1
.75
.87 PI2
PI .62
PI3
.62
PI2
Discussion
146
GP .21 .37 .73 .63 .48 .82 .77 .56 .71 .88 .63 .59 .29 .73 .30 94.5* .93 .06
GL .12 .42 .73 .63 .31 .92 .80 .43 .65 .93 .44 .64 .38 .48 .83 92.6* .94 .06
*p > .001.
Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 147
References
Aili, C., & Brante, G. (2007). Qualifying teacher work: Everyday work as basis for the
autonomy of the teaching profession. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(3),
287–306.
Allen, N., & Hecht, T. (2004). The ‘romance of teams’: Towards an understanding of its
psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 77(4), 439–461.
Annerstedt, C. (2005). Physical education and health in Sweden. In: M. Gerber & U. Pühse
(Eds.), International comparisons of physical education (pp. 604–629). Aachen: Meyer &
Meyer.
Arbuckle, L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters.
Barott, J., & Raybould, R. (1998). Changing schools into collaborative organizations. In: D.G.
Pounder (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 27–42).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bernstein, B. (1981). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In: M.F.D.
Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions in the sociology of education
(pp. 47–69). London: Collier.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: The structuring of pedagogic discourse.
London/New York: Routledge.
148 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
Bernstein, B. (2000). Class, codes and control: Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:
Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bezzina, C., & Testa, S. (2005). Establishing schools as professional learning communities:
Perspectives from Malta. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(2), 141–150.
Broadfoot, P. (1999). Not so much a context, more a way of life? Comparative education in the
1990s. In: R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing:
Contexts, classrooms and outcomes (pp. 21–31). Oxford: Symposium.
Broadhead, P. (2001). Curriculum change in Norway: Thematic approaches, active learning
and pupil cooperation – from curriculum design to classroom implementation. Scandina-
vian Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 19–36.
Brook, L., Sawyer, E., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2007). Teacher collaboration in the context of
the responsive classroom approach. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(3),
211–245.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis Seashore, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago
elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cavanaugh, R., & Dellar, G. (1997, March). Towards a model of school culture. Paper
presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 24–28.
Chabbott, C., & Elliott, E. (2003). Understanding others, educating ourselves: Getting more
from, comparative studies in education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
CoEC. (2004). Progress towards the common objectives in education and training: Indicators
and benchmarks. Brussels: European Council.
CoEU. (2001). The concrete future objectives of education and training systems. Brussels:
European Council.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B., & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD
on classroom teaching and learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Cordingley, P., & Temperlay, J. (2006). Leading continuing professional development in
school networks: Adding value, security impact. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education: An analysis of the restructuring of
the state-education relationship. In: A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells
(Eds.), Education: Culture, economy, society (pp. 273–282). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and
professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237–240.
Darling-Hammond, L., & MacLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional devel-
opment in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–605.
Furman-Brown, G. (1999). Editor’s foreword. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1),
6–12.
Geijsel, F., Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1999). The innovative capacity of schools in
primary education: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 12(2), 175–191.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age.
Cambridge: Polity.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing time: Teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for
educational change. In: A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.),
Education: Culture, economy, and society (pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1999). Schooling in the new millennium: Educational research for the post-
modern age. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 333–355.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151–182.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 149
Hargreaves, L., Cunningham, M., Everton, T., Hansen, A., Hopper, B., McIntyre, D., et al.
(2006). The status of teachers and the teaching profession: Views from inside and outside
the profession. London: University of Cambridge/University of Leicester.
Hindin, A., Morocco, C., Mott, E., & Aguilar, C. (2007). More that just a group: Teacher
collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,
13(4), 349–376.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Hord, S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Judge, H. (2000). Comparing education professionals: An introductory assay. In: R. Alexander,
M. Osborn, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing: Policy, professionals and
development (pp. 151–160). Oxford: Symposium.
Kougioumtzis, K. (2006). Lärarkulturer och Professionskoder. En comparative studie av
idrottslärare i Sverige och Grekland [Teacher cultures and professional codes: A compar-
ative study of physical education teachers in Sweden and Greece]. Gothenburg: ACTA.
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
Stylianidou, F., Bagakis, G., & Stamovlasis, D. (2004). Attracting, developing and retaining
effective teacher. Athens, GA: Education Research Centre.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review on the impact of professional learn-
ing communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2000). Teachers’ learning. Stories of science education. Hing-
ham, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Wiggins, K., & Damone, S. (2006). ‘Survivors’ or ‘friends’? A framework for assessing
effective collaboration. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 49–56.
Whitty, G. (1997). Marketization, the state, and the reformation of the teaching profession. In:
A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy,
society (pp. 299–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 151
Questions Values
FC1 How often do you participate in formal 5 = several times per week; 4 = about
school meetings with colleagues once a week; 3 = about once every
from several schools subjects? two weeks; 2 = about once a month; 1
= several times a year
FC2 Do you participate actively at formal 5 = every time; 4 = often; 3 =
school meetings developing sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1=never
educational issues in front of your
colleagues?
FC3 Are you satisfied with the way your 5 = absolutely; 4 = very pleased; 3 =
colleagues treat you during formal rather pleased; 2 = tense situation; 1 =
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .68
PI3 .23 .66
PI2 .39 .37 .72
PI1 .31 .35 .47 .74
DP4 .12 .05 .10 .10 .60
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .60
PI3 .36 .75
PI2 .42 .52 .68
PI1 .38 .48 .50 .72
DP4 .10 .15 .14 .13 .48
DP3 .19 .21 .18 .23 .26 .92
DP2 .17 .22 .25 .27 .27 .53 1.03
DP1 .12 .11 .09 .17 .19 .33 .23 1.24
FC4 .00 .04 .04 .09 .11 .03 .08 −.07 .90
FC3 .13 .13 .16 .17 .19 .13 .20 .06 .36 .78
FC2 .15 .18 .16 .19 .17 .24 .37 .19 .02 .30 1.01
FC1 .17 .16 .18 .18 .11 .18 .21 .04 .09 .24 .42 1.06
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 153
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .62
PI3 .13 .54
PI2 .28 .28 .65
PI1 .26 .24 .39 .63
DP4 .13 .00 .07 .11 .52
DP3 .28 .06 .11 .16 .24 .97
DP2 .18 .10 .18 .18 .23 .57 .99
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .78
PI3 .32 .85
PI2 .42 .43 .79
PI1 .27 .43 .54 .91
DP4 .11 .08 .02 −.04 .67
DP3 .20 .16 .11 .09 .32 .78
DP2 .23 .16 .09 .09 .35 .54 .94
DP1 .22 .06 .07 .08 .25 .32 .46 1.20
FC4 .18 .09 .06 .02 .22 .06 .03 .04 1.33
FC3 .09 .04 .00 .01 .20 .08 .06 .07 .47 .79
FC2 .07 .14 .04 .00 .24 .13 .13 .06 .21 .21 .77
FC1 .06 .03 −.03 −.02 .05 −.06 −.04 .00 .19 .12 .01 .80
154 K. Kougioumtzis and G. Patriksson
Variance–covariance matrix
PI4 PI3 PI2 PI1 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 FC4 FC3 FC2 FC1
PI4 .66
PI3 .12 .36
PI2 .44 .21 .78
PI1 .24 .18 .44 .70
DP4 .08 .02 .14 .13 .71
DP3 .17 .08 .21 .21 .22 .74
DP2 .16 .08 .27 .27 .31 .60 .88
DP1 .13 .06 .13 .14 .18 .26 .27 1.14
Downloaded By: [Göteborg University Library] At: 19:49 17 February 2009
FC4 .12 .09 .17 .11 .16 −.06 .07 .03 1.41
FC3 .06 .09 .12 .10 .08 .03 .07 −.02 .45 .61
FC2 .13 .02 .17 .20 .18 .16 .24 .05 .25 .22 .82
FC1 .09 .08 .10 .08 .16 .09 .11 .21 .13 .04 .01 .89