Introduction

Since the 1980s, the key role of teachers and teacher learning in educational reform is recognized (Fullan 1982; Joyce and Showers 1988). In the 1990s, these emerging insights yielded a broad body of literature on organizational learning in schools (Leithwood and Louis 1998), teacher learning in the workplace and school reform (Smylie 1995), and teachers’ professional communities in restructuring schools (Little 1999; Louis et al. 1996). School reform and teacher learning and professional development became interrelated themes for policy and research. As a result, attention is still growing for schools as learning environments for teacher learning, and research on teacher learning in schools more and more builds on general insights in workplace learning (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2005; Hoekstra et al. 2009; Imants and Van Veen 2010; Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto 2011).

At the same time, attention is growing for the role of agency in teacher learning and workplace learning in schools. In this article, the role of the teacher as an actor in reform is elaborated in two directions: the positioning of teachers towards reform, and the dynamic and two-sided relationship between individual teachers as learners and the context for their working and learning in schools. Traditional studies on educational reform and school improvement analyze the innovation concept as an entity apart from teachers and schools. The question in these studies is how teacher and school characteristics affect the more or less “pure” implementation and the effects of the innovation. However, recent research findings show that, while “implementing” a reform, teachers actively redefine the reform content and develop their attitudes toward the reform in terms of sense making or positioning (Coburn 2005; Hökka et al. 2010; Luttenberg et al. 2011; Spillane et al. 2002; Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto 2011). This article builds on the assumption that redefining the reform and developing an attitude towards specific reform contents are elements of a learning process teachers are engaged in while enacting the reform in daily classroom and school practice. In other words, redefining the reform is assumed to be part of a process of workplace learning. Therefore, this study is about teachers as active interpreters of reform within the work context of the school, with a focus on their definitions of the reform and their attitudes toward the reform.

Another characteristic of studies on educational reform is that school characteristics often are treated as “objective” characteristics of the school, and as such these conditions are assumed to be conditional for the effectiveness of improvement processes and professional development. An alternative approach is to view teachers’ perceptions of workplace characteristics as mediating the effects of these school characteristics. It is argued that these perceptions are more influential on teacher learning and organizational change as compared with the characteristics as such (Anderson 1982; Owens 1995). In research on workplace learning, the same insight is stressed: “Whether or not a certain situation should be considered as enabling or constraining is assumed to depend, not only or primarily on its objective characteristics, but rather on how these characteristics are subjectively evaluated and dealt with by the learning subject” (Ellström et al. 2007, p. 86). In this study, one further step is that teachers are regarded as actively enacting these school characteristics. School conditions apply to socio-cultural practices in teachers’ daily work environment that are actively co-constructed by teachers themselves (Billett 2004, 2008, 2010; Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2005; Lee and Roth 2007; Sambrook 2005).

Recent research shows that teachers look for cohesion between the content of the reinvented reform and the enacted characteristics of the work environment in which the reform is introduced into daily practice (Luttenberg et al. 2011). Both teachers’ interpretations of educational reform in classrooms and schools and their perceptions of school characteristics and workplace conditions for learning are considered to be result of and condition for individual and collective efforts for learning and school development. Teachers’ interpretations of reform and their enactments of the working and learning environment vary on two dimensions, (1) from stressing efficiency to innovation and (2) from interpreting the school as constraining to enabling. In this study, a mutual relationship is assumed between teachers’ definitions of and attitudes toward educational reform and their enactments of school characteristics for teacher learning. Reform and organization are regarded as two interacting contexts for teacher agency and as offering more or less related opportunities for student learning and teacher learning. The central question in this article is how teachers’ enactments of workplace conditions for teacher learning in their schools and their definitions of and attitudes toward the reform as opportunities for student learning are related.

Context of the Study

Teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions and their definitions of and attitudes towards reform were studied for the case of a major reform that has been introduced at the beginning of this century in Dutch upper secondary education: fostering students’ active and self-regulated learning. The context of the reform is presented here because an understanding of this context helps to read the section on teachers’ definitions of and attitude toward reform. The general aim of the reform was to prepare students better for study in higher education and lifelong learning. To reach this end, a national curriculum with new contents and high standards was developed.

In the context of this reform, teachers and schools were encouraged to introduce new pedagogies fostering students’ active and self-regulated learning (ASL) into their classrooms and schools. Although this pedagogical component was not mandatory in the national curriculum, the development of students’ study skills was regarded a central component of the reform. As a result, this reform implied a fundamental change in teachers’ pedagogical roles. As far as studies on promotion of self-directed learning in daily classroom practices have been executed, the results suggest that features of learning environments that foster self-directed learning seldom can be observed in daily classroom practice (Kistner et al. 2010). For a great number of teachers, this new pedagogy required a shift in their thinking and practices as a teacher. Moreover, hardly any practical examples of instructional methods for this new learning approach were available. Schools and teachers were expected to develop appropriate pedagogies to foster students’ active and self-regulated learning themselves. As a result, many teachers and schools struggled with the requirements of this reform (Bolhuis and Voeten 2004; De Kock 2004; Veugelers 2004). A lively debate developed around the themes of this curricular and pedagogical reform. For this reason, and because all schools were actively engaged in this reform, this period is a key episode for studying teachers definitions of and attitudes towards reform. The decision to focus this research on the context of ASL was thus based on methodological considerations. It is not the intention of this study to evaluate the reform itself.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for our study consists of two parts. First, teachers’ definitions of and attitudes towards ASL will be analyzed. Subsequently, recent insights into the role of teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions will be discussed, as well as some workplace conditions that can be assumed to be related to teacher learning in schools.

Teachers’ Definitions of and Attitudes towards Reform

Recent research on teacher agency in educational reform shows that teachers exhibit distinctive pathways through reform, in which teachers’ positioning in terms of reform and professional identity vary towards continuity and transformation (Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto 2011). According to Luttenberg et al. (2011), teachers make sense out of reform by looking for cohesion between the expectations that are communicated by the reform content, expectations in the school regarding the reform, and their personal professional beliefs and practices. This cohesion is found on two interrelated dimensions, the matching between reform and own frame of reference, and the distance between the own frame of reference and the dominant frame of reference. The role of this search for meaning is to maintain a balance between continuity and change in the work of the teacher and a balance between pressure to reform and professional autonomy.

In their discussion of teacher learning and professional development Hammerness et al. (2007) distinguish two dimensions, the efficiency dimension and the innovation dimension of teaching. According to these authors: “Expertise along the efficiency dimension involves greater abilities to perform particular tasks without having to devote too many attentional resources to achieve them” (p. 360), while: “lifelong learning along the innovation dimension typically involves moving beyond existing routines and often requires people to rethink key ideas, practices, and even values in order to change what they are doing” (p. 361). Although at an overall level these dimensions are assumed to be complementary, they can sometimes appear to be antagonistic at a local level. Teachers who are adaptive experts know how to balance these two dimensions.

Teaching strategies vary according to the degree to which they emphasize the innovation versus efficiency dimensions. When positioning themselves high at the efficiency dimension, teachers will advocate that teaching strategies are, and should be, highly scripted. When teachers position themselves high at the innovation dimension, they argue that effective teaching needs to be highly interactive and should vary depending on the needs of each learner and on specific goals for learning and learning contents, notwithstanding the need for a base of efficiency. Hammerness et al. (2007)) suggest that, by means of disciplined improvisation, the adaptive expert can keep both dimensions in balance. This far from simple practice involves innovation within a set of general constraints, and structured analysis of the innovation process to continue and adapt the strategies that are used (p. 364).

Definitions of innovation are distinguished from attitudes because teachers need not only to understand but also to do a wide variety of things (Hammerness et al. 2007, p. 359, italics by the authors). Teachers’ definitions are assumed to indicate their understanding of the innovation, while their attitudes are assumed to indicate their readiness to act innovative.

These definitions and attitudes can vary in their focus on efficiency or innovation. Regarding teachers’ definitions of ASL, the focus is on the pedagogy of ASL. These definitions can vary in terms of fundamental metaphors for teaching and learning. According to Sfard (1998), an acquisition metaphor and a participation metaphor can be distinguished. These metaphors differ with regard to goal and character of learning, roles of student and teacher, definition of knowledge, and vision of knowing. Generally, ASL better fits into the participation metaphor (Simons et al. 2000).

In this research, the teachers’ definition of ASL is focused on the contributions of the teacher and the student to students’ active and self-regulated learning. When the teacher’s definition of ASL is dominated by the efficiency dimension, ASL can be promoted without questioning teacher routines. In that case, general and existing student characteristics and activities that represent ASL will be stressed, and innovative teacher activity will be absent or described in narrow terms. When the teacher’s definition of ASL is dominated by the innovation dimension, ASL will be defined as the interaction between relatively new teacher and student activities, implying that teacher routines and existing students’ learning activities are questioned and teaching practices might change.

Regarding the attitude, the focus in this study is on the underlying ideas of ASL, its feasibility for students, and its practicability in schools. Together, these three aspects address the practicality ethic of teachers toward adoption of innovation. According to Doyle and Ponder (1977), this practicality ethic can be regarded as an expression of teachers’ readiness to innovate. When the efficiency dimension dominates, ASL will be characterized as unrealistic with low feasibility and practicability. When the innovation dimension dominates, attitudes on these three aspects will be more favorable toward ASL.

Workplace Conditions for Teacher Learning

Richardson and Placier (2001) distinguish two research traditions on teacher change: research on individual teacher change and research on the school as a context for teacher change. These authors note that these two bodies of literature: “largely stand on their own—almost entirely uninformed by each other” (p. 937–938). A similar observation is made by Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) when they state that literature on teachers’ continuing professional development and literature on workplace learning are hardly connected. In this article, the individual and the organizational aspects of teacher working and learning are regarded as mutually or interdependently related (Billett 2004). According to Lee and Roth (2007), learning individuals make learning organizations what they are while the latter simultaneously provide necessary affordances or action possibilities for its members to develop. A growing body of literature is demonstrating and analyzing this embedded character of teacher learning in community and policy contexts (Shulman and Shulman 2004), and this interdependency between the individual and the collective in workplace learning. Individual workers are performing culturally developed practices, but they are also continuously shaping these practices through their personal agency (Billett 2008, 2010).

Workplace conditions for teacher learning have been studied in research on teacher professional development, organizational learning in schools, and professional or learning communities (Marks and Louis 1999; Louis et al. 1996; Bryk et al. 1999). Although these diverse studies show a variety of perspectives and different emphases, some consensus appears on the general picture of workplace conditions that may affect teacher learning in schools. In their summary of insights in school contexts which influence planned efforts for teacher change, Richardson and Placier (2001) conclude that learning opportunities, common goals, control, administrative support, and a shared, complex view of teaching reoccur as significant organizational conditions related to teacher learning, commitment, collaboration, and empowerment.

More recently, teacher learning and professional development have been studied as teachers’ workplace learning in schools. In theories on workplace learning, working and learning are intrinsically and mutually related (Ellström 2001; Eraut 2000). Teachers’ workplace learning is defined as change in teaching practices in classrooms and schools that are mediated through individual teacher learning and problem-solving practices in the school. Six groups of factors are distinguished that can be assumed to be critical for facilitating or constraining the integration of learning and work for teachers in schools: (1) the learning potential of the task, (2) opportunities for feedback, evaluation, and reflection on the outcomes of work actions, (3) formalization of work processes, (4) employee participation in handling problems and developing work processes, (5) learning resources, and (6) shared norms (Imants and Van Veen 2010). The impact of these factors mainly is located in the way they are reinterpreted and reinvented by teachers as active learners in their daily work (Weick 1995). These factors play a multidimensional role in teacher workplace learning: They potentially promote opposite directions of learning (reinforcing routines or promoting innovations), and they can have opposite side effects (commitment or isolation, empowerment, or alienation) (Ellström 2001; Smylie 1995). As enacted characteristics of learning environments in schools, they can be assumed to be multidimensional, rather than a composite of two ideal types. For example, research on teacher learning in innovative teams showed that teacher learning is related to the quality of collaboration and that collaboration varies on the dimension of interdependency (Meirink et al. 2010).

In a recent detailed case study of two secondary school teachers, Hoekstra et al. (2009) concluded that conditions for teacher learning in schools were shaped by the interaction between general resources and conditions in school, and teachers as active interpreters and inventors of these daily work contexts. Building on these results, in the present study, four workplace characteristics are central: (1) autonomy, (2) collaboration, (3) feedback, and (4) shared responsibility, goals, and norms. These characteristics or socio-cultural practices serve as concrete specifications of general workplace conditions (Billett 2004; Sambrook 2005).

Autonomy

In the Hoekstra study (2009), one teacher enjoyed autonomy because it created opportunities to engage in learning activities regarding ASL and to keep distance from negative school conditions, like lack of shared norms. The other teacher experienced too much autonomy because he needed a sense of direction and practical feedback to deal with the ASL reform. Perceived autonomy is a sense of control over one’s environment and is related to power as a motivating and driving force rather than to the structural dispersion of power (Hackman and Lawler 1971). Individual autonomy of staff members, resulting in professional isolation, is identified as a barrier to shared goals and practices and thus to coordinated improvement processes (Bakkenes et al. 1999; Scribner 1999). Within autonomous groups, collegial interaction can provide teachers with a feeling of control over their work (Owens 1995).

Collaboration

In the Hoekstra study (2009), both teachers talked about collaboration as a means to reduce workload by dividing tasks. This hardly contributed to innovative teacher learning. For the second teacher, collaboration with some colleagues created the feeling of not being alone in dealing with students and strengthened the continuation of existing routines.

Teacher cooperation and collaboration vary along the dimension of interdependence (Hord 1986; Weick 1979). From storytelling and experience swapping, through exchange and adjustment, to joint work and problem solving, interdependence and opportunities for innovative learning increase (Little 1990; Rosenholtz 1989). Deep and critical reflection during learning might be particularly promoted by highly interdependent collaboration (Imants 2003; Meirink et al. 2010).

Feedback

In the Hoekstra study (2009), one teacher actively looked for rich feedback from students and colleagues to identify opportunities for improvement in teaching and student learning. The other teacher lacked varied feedback because he was only looking for support to continue his existing routines. Feedback on student performance for individual teachers and teacher teams will promote in-depth reflection on the quality of teaching and success or failure of attempts to reform (Imants 2003; Smylie 1995). However, the effectiveness of feedback and the direction of its effects depend on the positioning and the perspectives of the teachers who receive feedback, the quality of the feedback, and the opportunity in the work environment to actually implement the decisions that are based on the feedback (Hattie and Timperley 2007).

Shared Responsibility

For one teacher in the Hoekstra study (2009), the perception of a lack of shared norms allowed her to teach according to her own reform-oriented norms. For the other teacher, his interpretation of the shared norms that emphasized teacher-oriented teaching contributed to the reinforcement of his existing practices. In strong or homogeneous communities, goals are shared. Strong community can both result in and be the result of a shared focus on improvement or a shared focus on conservation (Little 1999). Some tension may occur between internal homogeneity and openness to the environment. In weak or heterogeneous communities, teachers form separate segments within the organization that are characterized by self-reliant practice (Louis et al. 1996; McLaughlin and Talbert 2001).

It is not uncommon to conceptualize the work environment as a dichotomy. Enabling and constraining environments are distinguished to characterize learning environment for workplace learning (Ellström et al. 2007), as well as expansive- and restrictive-type learning environments (Tynjälä 2008). Ellström (2001) distinguishes high-commitment, flexible, and learning-intensive work systems and workplaces in which scientific management design principles dominate. Regarding schools (Rosenholtz 1989), distinguished learning-enriched and learning-impoverished schools, and in their research, she and other researchers found far more learning-impoverished schools than learning-enriched schools (Little 2002). Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) state that, although the dichotomies appear to present opposing ideal-types, they more accurately represent a series of continua. Rather than these dual ideal typical constructions, in the present study, teachers’ perceptions of the organization of their learning environments are assumed to represent diverging positions on multidimensional constructs.

Workplace Conditions and Definitions of and Attitudes Toward Reform

According to theory on sense-making (Weick 1995), while teachers are engaged in finding practical definitions for reform contents in their classrooms and schools, they enact more or less favorable conditions for student and teacher learning in their work environment within the school. At the one hand, teachers are affected by this work environment in terms of how they reinterpret the school context. Simultaneously, by reinvention, they actively affect their work environment and school context while introducing the adapted reform content into daily classroom and school practice. In this study, it is expected that when learning-impoverished characteristics dominate in teachers’ perceptions of their schools, the efficiency dimensions dominates their perceptions of ASL. When learning-enriched characteristics can be identified in teachers’ perceptions of their schools, the innovation dimension will dominate their definitions of and attitudes toward ASL.

Design

Research Questions and Sample

The research question for this study is: how are the teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions for teacher learning in their schools and their definitions of and attitudes toward the reform related? To answer this question, a multiple case study has been executed among 18 teachers working in 15 different schools. A case study design creates opportunities to study perceptions of the work place, and definitions and attitudes regarding reform within the everyday context of teachers’ own school (Yin 1989). In this study, each individual teacher was treated as a case. Each individual teacher was extensively studied within her or his work context, using semi-structured instruments for data collection. By means of the structure in the instruments, opportunities for systematic comparison were created, while the relatively open character of the structure created opportunities for collecting data on specific context characteristics. In this article, the focus is on the comparison of the 18 cases. By comparing 18 cases, data can be analyzed into multiple meaningful categories, and by means of these categories, dimensions can be identified, and relationships within the data can be explored. Because of this focus on comparison, less attention is paid to the teacher’s voice in these specific school contexts. Teachers’ voice is extensively analyzed in three related studies (Hoekstra 2007; Meirink 2007; Zwart 2007).

All teachers taught in the upper grades of the two highest tracks in secondary education in The Netherlands (grades 9–12, students’ age ranging from 16–18; higher general secondary education and pre-university education tracks). Teachers’ background variables are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 shows that regarding gender, age, school subject, and years of experience the teachers in this study considerably vary in a meaningful way. Although the aim of the study is not to put generalizable conclusions forward, within the limitations of an explorative study, the cases quite well represent Dutch secondary school teachers in general.

Table 1 Teacher background characteristics
Full size table

Data Collection

A semi-structured interview was developed around the four concepts characterizing workplace learning conditions. The interviews lasted about 90 min. Teachers were asked whether and in what way:

  • They perceived control over their own work and what role the school management and their subject department played in that respect;

  • They interacted with colleagues, whether these interactions were facilitated and what these interactions meant to them regarding their own learning processes;

  • They received feedback on their teaching, whether feedback was organized in their school and what role feedback played in their own learning processes;

  • They perceived the existence of shared responsibility for students and shared norms and goals in the schools, whether their personal goals and norms were in line with those of the school management, and what this meant for them;

  • They felt that learning from external sources was facilitated and promoted in their school.

In addition to being interviewed, all 18 teachers completed an open-ended paper and pencil questionnaire about their definitions of and attitudes toward students’ active and self-regulated learning. In the first part of the questionnaire, teachers described what they understood to be active and self-regulated learning in a self-chosen amount of words. Subsequently, to further clarify their definition, they were asked to describe a practice that in their eyes was an example of active and self-regulated learning.

In the second part of the open-ended questionnaire, data were collected on teachers’ attitudes towards active and self-regulated learning. Teachers were asked to describe how they felt toward this reform when it comes to the underlying ideas, the feasibility for students, and the practicability in their school.

Data Analysis

A team of three junior and two senior researchers participated in the data analyses of this study.

All interviews on workplace conditions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. A coding instrument was developed in which the initial codes reflected all aspects of the workplace conditions that have been discussed in the theoretical framework. From two interviews, all meaningful chunks in the transcriptions were coded independently by two researchers. In meetings of the research team, the independent analyses were compared, and subsequently, the final coding list was specified. After coding all interviews, key concepts were located in the interviews based on recurring patterns in the data. The four general key concepts that had been used as sensitizing concepts appeared sufficient as main categories for categorizing all data.

For each teacher, a descriptive matrix was construed that displayed (1) the extent to which a key concept was present in the case, (2) the activities involved by the teacher with regard to the key concept, and (3) the teacher’s perception of the key concept’s role in working and learning. As a final step in the preliminary data analysis, individual patterns over the perception of the workplace conditions (in terms of the four key-concepts) were compared and contrasted along the dimension of increasing perceived opportunities for learning. As a result, the 18 teachers were sorted into four main clusters of perceptions of workplace conditions. In one cluster, three sub-clusters were distinguished.

Each teacher produced a handwritten personal definition of active and self-regulated learning, and this definition was illustrated with an example. In each completed questionnaire, words were underlined in the definition and the practical example referring to learning, teaching, learning environment, and student and teacher characteristics. Subsequently, categories of definitions were formed by grouping definitions with similar keywords. Two researchers underlined keywords and categorized definitions independently. The results were compared, and only minor differences appeared. These were discussed until consensus was reached, and finally, five categories emerged from the data.

Categories for the attitudes toward the reform were formed by two researchers independently by comparing the answer patterns of a teacher over the three questions. The results of the two researchers then were compared. In two of the 18 cases, different decisions had been made. The results were discussed and aligned, leading to four categories of attitudes, in which teachers were clustered.

As a final step in this preliminary stage of data analysis, a cross-table was constructed (“definitions × attitude”) with the five categories of definitions in the columns and the four categories of attitudes in the rows. The aim of this analytical step is to check whether definitions and attitudes are independent or related variables. A strong relationship between these two variables is an indication for interfering effects in the relationships between definitions, attitudes, and perception of workplace conditions.

To answer the research question, a cross-case analysis was executed over the 18 cases. Two cross-tables were constructed (“workplace conditions × definitions” and “workplace conditions × attitudes”). The cell-entries were the single cases, indicated by the names of the individual teachers. The 18 cases permit to distinguish several categories on the dimensions that represent the variables under study in this article. Relationships between variables can be explored by positioning individual cases on the two dimensions that define the cross-table. When cases are positioned from right-up to left-down in the cross-table, or from left-up to right-down, indications are found for a relationship. When cases are positioned without one of these two patters, no indications for a relationship are found.

Findings

Teachers’ Perceptions of Workplace Conditions and Learning

All teachers in our study experienced aspects of autonomy in their school. However, they experienced it in different ways. Teachers, who reported about being highly autonomous at an individual level, experienced isolation if their autonomy was not self-chosen. They did not experience their autonomy to promote their learning. As Vincent, an isolated art-teacher put it: “There are two different ways in which you can get autonomy. You can get room to do things and you can simply have the room because no one is interested”. In the first case, people reported being appreciated; in the second case, they felt ignored and not being rewarded. Facilitation of and encouragement by the school leader motivated teachers, whereas a lack of interest demotivated them. In the latter case, teachers thought: “Why bother?” So they did not tend to experiment with pedagogical innovations in their classes.

Autonomy was also experienced at a group level. This was only reported by teachers who perceived their school as a favorable context for their learning. Albert, who intensively collaborated with colleagues in his department, explained the role of group autonomy as follows: “Within the department, we really design our work, our teaching together.” The collaborating group of teachers had the possibility to initiate and to control change, to make things happen, which was a stimulating factor for learning.

A lack of autonomy, on the other hand, had a negative impact on teachers. Nick, a history teacher, said: “You can’t give people the idea that they have to develop things for themselves, give them that responsibility and then later overrule them … I consider that a paradox; that way people get confused and development stagnates”.

Collaboration and cooperation among teachers was perceived by teachers as promoting their learning. Working together gave teachers ideas and willingness to learn. Working with other people made teachers want to keep up with the rest of the group and helped them to experiment with new teaching methods and insights. Collaborating in a rather interdependent way changed teachers’ views, and they reported this made their learning intense. Albert explained: “When you work together, develop materials together, you really talk to one another about why you are doing things, the underlying idea; then you see that you have certain assumptions that might be wrong, or that you lack certain knowledge.” These interdependent forms of collaboration were only reported by teachers who perceived their school as a favorable learning context. Other, less interdependent, forms of cooperation seemed to have mainly motivational effects. For example, sharing experiences, getting affirmation of ideas, or becoming aware that colleagues have the same problems made teachers feel better about themselves. Moreover, cooperation that led to dividing tasks helped to work efficiently, and therefore, cooperating teachers were more likely to take action. It prevented them from throwing in the towel. Sharing materials on a voluntary basis made teachers less isolated and more willing to try something new. In the case of a teacher who was very unhappy with the working conditions, collegial interaction with one specific colleague was even crucial. Iris “If it wasn’t for this one contact I would leave this school or maybe even the profession.”

Bad experiences with collaboration had a counterproductive effect on learning. Mark and Jef both reported such experiences in the past. Jef told us: “In this school they tried to work with differentiated pay-checks. This resulted in a rat race for the higher paid jobs and also fears of failure. You didn’t want to show your colleagues what problems you had in your classroom because it might diminish your chances for a better job,” and also: “I tried to collaborate but I was giving, giving and giving and I got nothing back.” Both teachers had turned to an isolated position.

Feedback for teachers was not common among the teachers in our study. The main source of feedback was their students. Sometimes teachers asked students what they thought about things, but most of the time feedback from students was indirect and accidental. Student test results or student questionnaires were hardly used as feedback sources. In the schools that were perceived favorable learning contexts, teachers reported that, in the future, performance interviews would be held on the basis of student feedback questionnaires. Teachers mentioned that without feedback they kept running in circles. They expressed a wish to know what was going well and what could be improved. Teachers in schools perceived as favorable learning contexts explicitly reported that they would like to get more feedback. Collaboration between teachers helped to organize feedback, but this only applied for interdependent forms of collaboration. Even in this interdependent collaboration, teachers were provided with limited forms of feedback, for example, feedback on the classroom behavior of the teacher was hardly mentioned.

Teachers reported that performance interviews were held rarely. In schools where performance interviews occurred, these were not based on solid information about classroom performance. The way these interviews were practiced could have a counterproductive effect on learning, even for teachers who were evaluated as excellent professionals. This applied for teachers who experienced that they were not noted by the school management. In one case, a teacher had been asked what her strong points were and how she would like the school to use these strong points. When later on the school management started activities building on teachers’ strong points, they completely ignored this teacher. This incident was a source for huge frustration.

The role of shared responsibility, goals, and norms was illustrated in the perceptions of Iris and Susan. Both teachers mentioned the problem of lack of discipline, motivation, and independence of students as a hot item in their schools. According to Iris, in her school, informal discussions about the students usually had a negative tone. The problematic student behavior and attitudes affected Iris: She worried about her own capabilities, and she did not enjoy teaching anymore. She talked to her colleagues about it, hoping that they could help her or that they could do something together, based on shared responsibility. However, shared responsibility in her school and clear goals or shared norms seemed to be absent in her school, even when it came down to discipline rules for students. When Iris talked to her colleagues, things seemed to become even worse. Her colleagues recognized the problems but everybody blamed the students, the parents and especially the school management. When asked whether these discussions helped her to think about a solution Iris said: “I just think let’s get the hell out of here.”

Susan experienced similar problems: “The lack of discipline and independence of students is really an item at this school. How can we make students more independent and how can we let them take more responsibility for their own learning, that’s something we often talk about. But you really have to be careful that you’re not only grumbling about it and be only negative. It’s really important to look at what we as teachers can change to help the students change. These topics should be on the agenda of the department and become a shared goal. I managed to get it on the agenda because we all felt we had to do something together.” Susan worked in a school that recently was trying to foster teacher cooperation. They were working on shared goals, and they tried to collaborate more. Shared responsibility often seemed to go together with rather interdependent forms of collaboration.

Some teachers reported shared implicit norms and ideas to hinder teachers’ initiatives and learning, because these norms acted as set rules. Nick explained the importance of looking outside the borders of the school to promote learning: “Colleagues think that things are the way they are. I have often thought: yes, this is the way it works here; this is how I should teach. To realize that things can be done in a different way, that there are alternatives, it is necessary to look outside the gate and to start discussions.” In most schools, teachers were allowed or encouraged to follow in-service courses, but looking at other schools’ practices hardly occurred. Many teachers, however, indicated that for courses to be useful it was necessary to see how other teachers practiced teaching or how other schools organized activities. Some teachers had managed to organize this kind of activities for themselves, but for most of them, when they returned to the schools, their experiences were ignored. Only in schools that were perceived favorable contexts for learning outside information was discussed intensively and used in developing new practices.

Types of School Environments

To identify types of school environment in terms of workplace conditions, teachers were categorized based on the perceived characteristics of their schools. It should be noted that teachers who work in the same school may perceive their environment differently, and therefore, they can end up in different categories. Four categories of perceived work environments were identified. The 18 teachers were grouped into these categories: (1) isolation, (2) work in progress, (3) hope for the future, and (4) professional community.

The first group consisted of eight teachers who had more or less isolated positions in their school. They experienced a lot of autonomy regarding their classroom practice and the way they realized students’ active and self-regulated learning. Most of the teachers indicated they experienced too much autonomy. Teachers in their schools could do whatever they wanted. On request, teachers could take a course or buy materials, unless someone else had asked quicker, so there was no money left. Teachers hardly collaborated. Teachers swapped experiences and occasionally shared ideas on a voluntary basis, usually among teachers who liked each other on a personal level. They experienced a lack of feedback, communication, and direction. They did not experience shared responsibility for students in the school. Although they experienced to be responsible individually, they did not see proof of responsibility taken at the school level. Shared responsibility, norms, and values, if there were any, one-sidedly focused on discipline and behavioral rules for students. The school management was not visible or was sending conflicting messages.

Two out of the eight teachers in this category actively had chosen for isolation because of bad experiences in the (recent) past: the sub-category “self-chosen isolation.” These teachers did report on projects and other activities currently underway in their schools, but they chose to stay away from it. Six teachers would love to have more contact, feedback, and collaboration but felt that this was not possible in their schools. These teachers felt ignored by the school management. Three out of these six teachers experienced “indifferent isolation.” The three other teachers experienced restrictions in their environment: the sub-category “frustrating isolation.” This subgroup of teachers stand out from the isolation teachers for their high level of frustration resulting from the perceived discrepancy between their own and the school’s aspirations and the dead-end situation in the school.

The six teachers in the second category, hope for the future, experienced encouragement by their school management. In their eyes, the school management was working hard to make the school a better learning environment and to get students’ active and self-regulated learning on the road. However, changing the organization took (too much) time and the work-floor had not yet changed for real. There was not much collaboration and feedback in these environments, but this got gradually some more attention. Teachers shared ideas on a voluntary basis, usually among teachers who liked each other on a personal level. Collegial interaction mainly was on the departmental level. In the departments, teachers aligned tests and teaching contents broadly, but there was no intensive collaboration. Generally, there was a high level of individual autonomy perceived by teachers in this group. There were no shared goals, norms, and values other than disciplinary rules or test norms. Taking in-service courses or visiting conferences outside the school was possible if wished for good reasons, but the main concern for the school management was internal cohesiveness.

The three teachers in the category, work in progress, worked in recently started school teams or projects. In these formal or informal teams, they shared autonomy with the aim to put students’ active and self-regulated learning in practice. They were rather ambitious. In these school environments, not all teachers of the school were involved in developments; some had a wait-and-see attitude; others were more skeptical, but within the teams or projects, teachers collaborated, and these activities were facilitated and encouraged by the school management. The teams tried to make plans, develop materials, and alternative practices. Although the school management promoted these activities, they were not substantially involved, and they sent out conflicting messages occasionally. It was not always clear what the school management wanted, and sometimes the teams (that were put in place by the school management) got overruled. Because of the team activities and their encouragement and facilitation in terms of time and materials, the teachers experienced a change for the better and developments in their school. At the same time, they experienced a lack of shared goals and not enough sense of direction and feedback.

Only one of the 18 teachers in our study perceived his school as a professional community. He described his school as a community in which people care for the students and for each other. There was much and intense collaboration within the department, in which teachers of the lower and higher grades worked together with a feeling of collective autonomy. The teachers developed teaching materials together, and they aligned their teaching and testing methods based on shared goals. At the same time, there was individual freedom to experiment and try something new. These experiments were discussed and evaluated with colleagues. At some occasions, there was a tension between school rules and what the department wanted. As a department, they did their very best for a different way of testing. It was a tough discussion, but in the end they got what they wanted. This teacher also developed teaching materials with teachers from another department, in collaboration with a university. School management encouraged teachers to help colleagues, brought teachers in contact with each other, and promoted intensive discussions about learning and teaching by sending teachers into a joint retreat. The teacher experienced appreciation by the school management. However, there were also factors endangering positive developments. Although at his school collaboration was considered the usual, time for it was not scheduled. The department met on Friday afternoon from 5 till 7 pm or in the evening. Also, there was little organized feedback.

Definitions of and Attitudes Toward Students’ Active and Self-Regulated Learning

The analysis of the teachers’ definitions and practical examples yielded five types of definitions of ASL. Table 2 provides an overview of the five types and accompanying examples of definitions and practices in classrooms and schools. In the first column, the five types are mentioned, as well as the number of teachers who described this type of definition. The second column depicts specific examples of these types as they were given by the teachers, and the third column shows practices mentioned by the teachers. Table 2 shows that these definitions can be put on a dimension, with increasing self-regulation for students and active orientation on the teachers’ role in student learning.

Table 2 Categories of definitions and examples of students’ active and self-regulated learning
Full size table

In the first category (three teachers), ASL was purely defined in terms of students’ characteristics, with an emphasis on students’ motivation and attitude. These definitions kept unclear what learning activities of students are requested. The role and activities of the teachers were not mentioned either.

In the second category (two teachers), ASL was described as independent study (apart from the teacher), reading, or processing of subject matter on the basis of study schedules or specific teacher instructions. Students can do this alone, or they can consult other students. The teacher role is to be a walking encyclopedia consulted on request. Students work out of textbooks (reading text or completing pre-structured assignments from the school book or teacher prepared materials). The only decision students have to make is the decision about when to do something.

In definitions of the third category (six teachers), students actively implement, apply, or use subject matter on the basis of challenging and motivating assignments, in or (partly) outside the classroom. The definitions differ from the previous category because teachers not only mention students to work independently, but also mention that teachers give short instructions or answer questions and that students have to apply, relate, connect, design, think, present, or solve problems, individually or (usually) in small groups. Often, the assignments have multiple solutions (not one single right answer).

The definitions in the fourth category (two teachers) define ASL as students completing activating assignments with evaluation or reflection. To some extent, these definitions were similar to those in the third category, but in addition to the students’ role, the teachers explicitly mentioned that their own role supported (group)-learning processes and helped students to evaluate and reflect on their work and learning process.

In the definitions in the fifth category—self-regulation by students—(five teachers), it is stressed that students chose themselves. The students regulate their own learning process and develop their own strategies. Open assignments, when mentioned, are referred to as a means to develop (learning) skills.

Categories for teachers’ attitudes toward the reform were developed from their answers to the questions on feelings towards the underlying ideas of ASL, its feasibility for students and practicability in the school. Four categories of attitudes were defined that are illustrated in Table 3. In the left column, the categories of attitudes are mentioned as well as the number of teachers who described these attitudes. The second column presents illustrations of how teachers formulate their attitude regarding underlying ideas within one of the four specific categories. The third column does the same for feasibility of the idea, and the fourth column does the same for practicability. Table 3 shows that the four categories can be put on a dimension from negative to positive attitudes towards the reform of ASL.

Table 3 Categories of attitudes toward active and self-regulated learning and examples of answers on questions about ideas, feasibility, and practicability
Full size table

The teachers in the category negative attitude (two) felt negatively about the underlying ideas of the renewal or said that they did not know what the ideas were. They had strong doubts about the feasibility for students and saw many obstacles when it comes to the practicability in schools. Ambivalent teachers (six) thought positively about the underlying ideas of the reform, but they did not consider these ideas feasible or practicable. Teachers in the category conditionally positive (four) were positive or rather positive about the underlying ideas. They also felt these ideas to be feasible and practicable, but only if certain conditions were met. Teachers in the category positive (six) felt unconditionally positive about the underlying ideas of ASL. They thought ASL is feasible for students, though they usually felt that it was more difficult for higher general education students than for pre-university students. The former were supposed to need a somewhat different approach with more guidance. Teachers in this category might see some obstacles or things that can be improved at the school level, but for them that was no reason not to try.

In Table 4, the two dimensions of types of teachers’ definitions of students’ active and self-regulated leaning (columns) and categories of attitudes toward the reform (rows) have been cross-tabled. Each individual case is characterized by a combination of one type of definition and one category of attitude and should thus be placed in one cell of the table. As a result, an overview is constructed of the distribution of the 18 cases over the types of definitions and the categories of attitudes in one table. Table 4 shows that the 18 cases are distributed over the cells of the cross-table without a specific pattern. This means that, for these 18 teachers, no relationship is found between both variables. A relationship is only demonstrated when the cases are positioned on one of the two diagonals of the table. For this reason, both variables will be related separately to teachers’ perceptions of workplace conditions in the next section. One remarkable finding is that the two teachers with negative attitudes towards ASL both define ASL in terms of student learning activities and teacher pedagogy; this is the innovation dimension. For these teachers, this innovative definition of teaching and student learning is unrealistic and not feasible in their schools. For one of these teachers (Mark), this position is associated with self-chosen isolation, and for the other (Vincent), with indifferent isolation (see: Tables 5 and 6).

Table 4 Teachers’ definitions of student active and self-regulated learning and their attitudes
Full size table
Table 5 Teachers’ definitions of active and self-regulated learning and their perceptions of workplace environments
Full size table
Table 6 Teachers’ attitudes toward active and self-regulated learning and their perceptions of workplace environments
Full size table

Work Place Conditions and Self-Regulated Learning

In this section, the types of perceived workplace conditions for learning and the interpretations (definitions and attitudes) of ASL are related by displaying the results of the 18 cases in two cross-tables. Table 5 shows workplace types in the rows and definitions of ASL in the columns. The cell entries are the names of the individual teachers. Regarding the perceived workplace conditions, moving down the rows the table displays an increasing amount of stimulation, support, and collaboration for learning, from three types of isolation to professional community. Moving to the right, the table displays an increasing amount of self-regulation by students and an increasing orientation by teachers on the learning process of students in the definitions of ASL.

At first sight, the cases are distributed quite evenly over the left-up, right-up, and right-down. This means that no relationship can be identified between workplace conditions for learning and the definitions of ASL. However, when Vincent and Mark in the right-up part are treated as outliers (see: the discussion of Table 4). the cross-table shows a relation between definitions and workplace conditions. Teachers, who perceived their working situation as isolation or as hope for the future (more or less learning impoverished), tend to define the content of the reform in a more limited way than teachers in a work in progress or professional community environment (more or less learning-enriched). On first sight, Vincent and Mark seemed to be exceptions on this rule because they have a deep understanding of and relatively wide scope on the reform even though they work in a perceived context of isolation. However, both Vincent and Mark express the most negative attitude toward ASL, which in combination with their sophisticated definitions, might be experienced as a dissonant position. Moreover, their positions toward isolation are indifferent respectively self-chosen, they do not experience their isolation as frustrating. Together, these results make their outlier positions in Table 5 understandable.

Table 6 shows workplace types in the rows, and attitudes toward ASL in the columns. Again, the cell entries are the names of the individual teachers. Regarding the perceived workplace conditions, moving down the rows the table displays an increasing amount of stimulation, support, and collaboration for learning, from three types of isolation to professional community. Moving to the right, the table displays a more positive attitude of teachers towards ASL. Table 6 shows that the character of the workplace environment and the teachers’ attitudes towards ASL are related. The more the perceived environment is stimulating, supportive, and collaborative (learning enriched), the more positive are the attitudes toward the reform. In this analysis, Vincent and Mark reinforce the image of an unequivocal relationship.

Conclusion and Discussion

The research question was how teachers’ enactments of workplace conditions for teacher learning in their schools and their definitions of and attitudes toward the reform as opportunities for student learning are related?

The findings show that all teachers experienced autonomy, but only four teachers perceived this autonomy positively as an opportunity for experimenting with instruction. For most teachers, autonomy was connected to isolation. Collaboration was not restricted to schools with a favorable context for teacher learning. However, collaboration usually took the form of an efficient division of tasks with a low level of interdependence. Creation of collaborative opportunities for improvement and learning were scarcely found. Regarding feedback, the conclusion was that feedback was frequently mentioned as important but hardly occurred in daily school practice. Shared responsibility, goals, and norms often were restricted to school rules and student discipline.

The findings regarding the four characteristics were combined into four types of perceived workplace conditions: isolation, hope for the future (that can be regarded as a promising form of isolation), work in progress, and professional community. These findings confirm that the learning environment for teachers in schools should be analyzed as a multidimensional construct instead of a dual set of ideal-types. In terms of quality of their learning environments, most teachers perceived their workplace conditions as isolated. Isolation differed in terms of self-chosen or frustrating, and some teachers appeared to be indifferent toward isolation. Isolation was not regarded a favorable condition for learning and improvement. Only a minority of teachers saw their workplace conditions as favorable for learning and improvement, associated with collective autonomy, interdependent collaborative relationships, and shared responsibility. This domination of the image of isolation in the reports of secondary school teachers corresponds to outcomes of research on images of secondary schools and professional community in secondary schools (Firestone and Herriott 1982; Herriott and Firestone 1984; Imants et al. 2001; Louis et al. 1996).

Teachers show considerable variation in their definitions of and attitudes toward ASL. Five types of definitions were identified, showing increasing amounts of self-regulation by students regarding their learning activities and active pedagogies by teachers to promote students’ self-regulated learning processes. Teachers also varied in their attitudes towards ASL from negative, via ambivalent, and conditionally positive to positive, in terms of the underlying ideas, feasibility for students, and practicability for teachers. These findings fit well into the conceptualization of the efficiency dimension and innovation dimension of teaching, as distinguished by Hammerness et al. (2007). However, knowledge of the innovation (definition) and readiness to innovate (attitude) were not closely related, implying that teachers can position themselves in multiple ways and combinations. The categories that were identified in teachers’ definitions and attitudes correspond well with results of Dutch studies of the ASL reform (Bolhuis and Voeten 2004; De Kock 2004).

Findings show relationships between perceived workplace conditions and both definitions of and attitudes toward ASL. The relationship with attitude is unequivocal: The more the perceived environment is learning-enriched, the more the attitudes towards the reform reflect the innovation dimension of teacher learning. Regarding the relationship with definitions, two teachers with negative attitudes and self-chosen respectively indifferent isolated positions are positioned as outliers, which makes the relationship with perceptions of workplace conditions ambiguous. Apart from these two teachers, the relationship between perceived workplace conditions for learning and definitions of ASL is quite straightforward: The more teachers perceive their work environment as a learning-enriched environment, the more they define the reform in terms of the innovation dimension of teacher learning. Attitude was defined by means of the three aspects of teachers’ “practicality ethic” regarding innovation and expresses a readiness to act innovative. It is not surprising that this measure of attitude shows the more unequivocal relationship with perceptions of workplace conditions as context for teacher learning.

The results of this study confirm the expectation that perceptions of conditions for workplace learning and definitions of and attitudes toward reform in terms of learning and teaching are mutually related. Moreover, these results confirm and extend the findings of earlier studies. Definitions of and attitudes toward the same reform differ considerably among teachers, suggesting a variety of sense-making and positioning options. These findings stress the importance of the further analysis of teacher agency in reinterpreting and reinventing reform contents (Hökka et al. 2010; Luttenberg et al. 2011; Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto 2011). Workplace conditions turn out to differ considerably in their meaning as learning environments for teachers, and as such, in their impact on teacher workplace learning and school development. Learning outcomes of workplace learning depend on how workplace conditions and reform concepts are perceived and enacted by teachers within the school (Ellström 2001; Ellström et al. 2007; Hoekstra et al. 2009; Imants and Van Veen 2010; Meirink et al. 2010).

In this study, insights were developed on the role of school learning environments on teacher learning in the context of educational reform. These insights seem promising for bringing the lines of individual and organizational change literature closer toward each other, in terms of a continuous interplay between individual and the organizational aspects of teacher working and learning (Billett 2004, 2008, 2010; Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2005; Lee and Roth 2007). Besides, these insights point in the direction of systemic approaches of reform in which rich conditions for workplace learning are arranged and rearranged in schools, and in which experimenting with the reform and developing the capacity for student and teacher learning in the school by teachers as the central actors go hand in hand. Such an approach differs fundamentally from current strategies in which organizational characteristics are treated as factors underlying transformations and continuities (Vähäsantanen and Eteläpelto 2011). Instead, these organizational factors are integral parts of the processes of transformation and continuation in schools.