Action research as professional learning in and through practice

ABSTRACT

It is widely accepted that professional learning is a crucial aspect of the ongoing professional practice of educators. But how should this professional learning take place, and what arrangements enable and constrain practices associated with educator learning? In this article, we explore two case studies of action research projects: one undertaken with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the other undertaken with Swedish principals. Using the theory of practice architectures and the Professional Learning Framework (see text), we consider what action research team members identified that they learnt through the action research projects, and what enabled and constrained that learning. The findings highlight five key themes that enabled and constrained educator professional learning and supported educators in making positive changes in their professional practice: power and solidarity, trust, recognition, agency and time. Further, reflection and collaboration were also highlighted as important factors in supporting educator professional learning. We conclude that action research can enable educator professional learning, can support the contextualised understanding of what works, how it works and for whom it works, and can enable educators to make positive changes in their professional practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Action research
• professional learning
• theory of practice architectures
• VET teacher learning
• principal learning
• professional development

Introduction and background

Ongoing learning is crucial for educators. In recognition of this, professional learning is often a key element in educator professional standards documents, with most such documents identifying a requirement for ongoing learning. For instance, in Australia, the whole of Section 6 (including the four associated sub-sections) of the Australian Professional Standards for teachers is devoted to professional learning (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, n.d.). We see a similar trend in Sweden, where the Swedish Education Agency has been tasked (U2022/02319) to develop a national structure for professional learning for principals, teachers and preschool teachers together with a national qualification system. The related legislation is proposed to take effect from 1 January 2025.

We argue that having professional learning enshrined in standards does not necessarily support and nurture praxis development for teachers and there is a real danger that it may even constrain praxis development by supporting and embedding a performance culture within education (Sachs and Mockler 2012, Sachs 2016). Sachs (2016) argues that performance cultures in an organisation implies ‘a low level of trust in the professionalism of their employee’ (p. 415). Mockler (2013) notes that the professional learning of teachers is often identified as a ‘policy problem’ (p. 36) related to ‘teacher [italics added] quality or lack thereof, wherein a response from the state in the form of regulation and standardisation is required’ (p. 36) resulting in development and use of professional standards with the purpose of raising ‘the quality of members of the teaching profession’ (p. 37). Similarly, Kennedy (2014) refers to the ‘global hyper-narrative’ (p. 691) where policy related to professional learning is heavily informed by the neo-liberal focus on economic outcomes, and the notion ‘that improving teacher quality will improve pupil outcomes, which will increase nation-states’ economic competitiveness’ (p. 691). This narrative also puts the focus of teaching quality onto the individual teacher and allows a focus away from how to nurture and sustain the teaching profession more broadly. Kennedy and Stevenson (2023) note that there is a continuing focus in professional learning research on transmissive models which ‘are often managerially imposed, embedded within performative structures and are central to encouraging cultures that value conformity and compliance over radical change’ (p. 1). They go on to warn that there is a danger the professional learning available to, and required of, educators focuses primarily on ‘what works’ without more deeply questioning ‘what matters’ (p. 1). Kaukko et al. (2020) argue that ‘ideally, research for praxis avoids asking simply “what works?” but instead asks how do things work, and for whom?’ (p. 50). A similar question might be asked in relation to professional learning.

We suggest that a broader focus on professional learning for praxis development can address some of these issues and that action research is one approach that can support professional learning associated with what works, how things work, and for whom things work.

Praxis is understood in various ways. In this article, we understand educational praxis in the way outlined by Mahon et al. (2020) as

…a special kind of action (or practice as we have argued), but it is not action without thought or moral intentions. It is informed, reflexive, and committed to bringing about the ‘good’, whatever that might be in the given educational context, for others and humankind, in and through the educational endeavours that go on in that context. (p. 32)

In exploring professional learning for praxis development, we draw on two action research projects, one with Swedish principals and the other with Australian vocational education and training (VET) teachers. By focusing on two quite different groups of educators (school principals and VET teachers; Sweden and Australia) and different arrangements for the action research projects (one part of a formal qualification and one developed together with the participants as part of a research project to support the development of VET pedagogy), we aim to identify arrangements that enabled and constrained the professional learning of educators through undertaking action research projects.

In Australia, organisations (including schools) need to be registered to be able to provide nationally accredited vocational education and training. There is a requirement for registered training organisations (RTOs) to ensure ongoing professional development of teachers. However, Dymock and Tyler (2018) found that the professional learning that VET teachers have access to is largely limited to professional development that is ‘undertaken to fulfil obligations and meet certification requirements rather than because of its potential to impact on the quality of practice’ (p. 204). At the same time, there is a call for the ongoing professional learning of VET teachers (Guthrie and Jones 2018, Francisco 2022). Dymock and Tyler (2018) argue that the existing foundation certification is ‘an inadequate educational qualification for identifying a VET practitioner as a “professional”, as well as a weak base for the ongoing professional development such practitioners need in order to meet the challenge of carrying out their roles in increasingly complex pedagogical and work environments’ (p. 208). VET teachers need professional learning that supports their ongoing development in these complex and demanding environments (Guthrie and Jones 2018, Francisco 2022).

Principals have an important function in schools’ ability to create high-quality learning and teaching. As the expectations placed on principals are high, and large resources are invested in school leadership training, research on the impact of such initiatives is crucial. Some work related to the impact of the Swedish school leaders’ training programme on principals’ leadership and school organisation has already been undertaken (Forssten Seiser and Söderström 2021, 2022, Jerdborg 2022) but there is still need for more studies exploring this. Forssten Seiser and Söderström (2022) found that when principals were forced to deal with problems that occurred in their daily professional lives, they did not use their experiences from the training programme. This finding highlights how difficult it is to transfer experiences from a traditional training programme to principals’ leadership in local schools.

This article progresses in the following way. We begin by explicitly outlining the concepts of professional learning and action research. This then leads to the aim and the research questions that this article addresses. Next, we provide an overview of the theory and the framework that inform this article: the theory of practice architectures which influenced the set-up of the two research projects we discuss and the framework for professional learning for praxis development developed by Salo et al. (2024) which is itself informed by the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al. 2014b, Kemmis 2022). The two case studies drawn on in this article are outlined, together with the methodology used for each research project. The findings and discussion are then presented.

Professional learning

The concept of professional learning has been understood in various ways. Together with Salo et al. (2024) and Olin et al. (2020), and in accordance with the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al. 2014b) we understand professional learning as ‘learning in and for practice’ (Salo et al. 2024, p. 8) and as manifested through three inter-related approaches: being stirred into practice, knowing how to go on, and distancing oneself from practice. Being stirred into practice involves learning about the practices by participating in them (Kemmis et al. 2017). Participants can be stirred in by others and also stir themselves into practices. Wittgenstein (2009) introduced the concept of knowing how to go on. He asks, “in what sort of case, in what kind of circumstances, do we say, ‘Now I know how to go on?’ (Wittgenstein 2009, p. 66). The concept of distancing oneself from practice (Rönnerman 2012, Olin et al. 2020) highlights the importance of self-reflection as well as reflection and dialogue in communicative spaces. The first two approaches underscore the practice perspective, pointing out that learning happens in and through practice. The third approach adds an existential dimension to practice when highlighting human activities for learning such as reflection and dialogue. These activities contribute to being able not only to learn by taking part in practices but also by critically examining them.

The professional learning that we consider in this article focuses on professional learning for praxis development (Olin et al. 2020). It thus does not focus on professional learning for compliance requirements, or for learning of specific predetermined content. Next, we discuss the affordances of action research in supporting the professional learning of educators.

Action research as professional learning

In education fields action research can be undertaken for a range of purposes. Kemmis et al. (2014a, 2014b) argue that the purpose of critical participatory action research (CPAR) is to ‘change social practices’ (p. 2). Carr and Kemmis (1986) argue that improvement and involvement are the two key aims for action research (p. 165). The overall aim of CPAR is to support and empower participants as they explore their own situation in order to improve it (Kemmis et al. 2014a). Research and improvements through empowerment require a non-conventional relationship between scholars and practitioners, which can be seen as challenging some of the dominant research traditions (Carr and Kemmis 1986, 2009). Participation, engagement and emancipation are guiding principles for CPAR (Forssten Seiser 2020) and, therefore also for the action research projects reported in this study.

Hardy and Rönnerman (2011) identify action research as a valuable approach to professional learning that supports collaboration, an awareness of the complexity of educator learning, and a focus on site-based practices and arrangements. Further, Kaukko et al. (2020) argue that ‘Educational action research would appear to be one of the most relevant approaches for praxis development across different educational sites and national contexts’ (p. 43). Similarly, Salo et al. (2024) identify action research as a form of professional learning that can support praxis development. They identify collaboration, dialogue, reflection and inquiry as important components of professional learning and these are inherent components of most action research projects (Kemmis et al. 2014a, 2014b).

The aim of this article is to empirically consider the ways in which action research enables and constrains professional learning. An additional aim for this article, and associated with the first aim, is to consider whether the framework developed by Salo et al. (2024) is useful in illuminating the enablers and constraints for teacher professional learning. The questions the article addresses are:

• What, and in what ways, did action research team members identify that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research?

• What enabled and constrained their learning?

The theory of practice architectures

The two case studies that we consider in this article were established with a theory of practice architectures framework (Mahon et al. 2017). With a site-based focus on practices, the theory of practice architectures holds that practices are made up of sayings, doings and relatings that ‘hang together’ in a project (Kemmis et al. 2014b). These sayings, doings and relatings are prefigured (but not predetermined) by practice architectures present or brought into the site. As Figure 1 shows, sayings are prefigured by the cultural-discursive arrangements in a site; doings are prefigured by the material-economic arrangements in a site; and relatings are prefigured by the social-political arrangements in a site (Kemmis et al. 2014b).

Figure 1. The theory of practice architectures (adapted by Stephen Kemmis from Figure 5.4 in Kemmis 2022, p. 97; used with permission).

Cultural-discursive arrangements, in the semantic dimension, enable and constrain the sayings in a practice. For instance, the ideas and language used during a meeting of an action research team.

Material-economic arrangements, in the physical space/time dimension, include: physical objects such as desks, chairs and buildings, as well as the ways these are set up (for instance in a classroom); artefacts, such as teaching resources and lesson plans; timetables and scheduling (such as meetings and classes); human and economic resources (such as permanently or casually employed teachers, and availability of computers for students or time release for teachers).

Social-political arrangements, in the social dimension, include hierarchical arrangements in an organisation or team, and relationships of power and solidarity.

Professional learning practices are enabled and constrained by the practice architectures of the site in which the professional learning takes place. As Francisco et al. (2017) argue, the theory of practice architectures can ‘help us work out how to maintain and sustain professional praxis – informed, committed, action that makes histories – into an uncertain future’ (p. 264). Francisco et al. (2023) found that power, agency, and trust are three key practice architectures that enable and constrain professional learning for the development of critical praxis. Salo et al. (2024) were informed by the theory of practice architectures in developing their framework for professional learning for praxis development and identified collaboration, dialogue, inquiry, and reflection as foundational. They also identify four key factors that enable and constrain professional learning for praxis development: trust, power and solidarity, recognition and agency. Relational trust is developed over time and influences the interactions that support professional learning in and for practice. Power can be understood in a range of ways, including the concept of ‘power over’ where an individual or group has power over others and ‘power with’ (sometimes understood as solidarity) which can be related to working together for a shared and mutually agreed outcome (Smeed et al. 2009). Recognition refers to mutual recognition of the contributions and capacities of self and others. Agency can be understood as having the potential and possibility to act using professional judgement according to the needs of a situation. Salo et al. (2024) identify time as the fifth theme that is an important factor for professional learning: including time allocated and used for the professional learning as well as the duration of that professional learning. Similarly, in her work with Swedish principals, Johansson (2023) highlights time as an important component of successful professional learning.

Action research as professional learning: two case studies

The empirical evidence for this paper draws on two case studies of action research (AR) projects: one with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the other with Swedish principals. Each of these case studies was undertaken as professional learning in and through practice: in undertaking the action research projects the participants were changing their practices and learning through these changes. The two case studies draw on participants’ experiences of the action research projects and are clearly bounded around participation in those projects (Stake 1995, Merriam 1998). The period of the AR project provides another boundary for each case study.

The Australian VET teachers case study involved an AR project undertaken by Beauty Therapy teachers, with a focus on middle-leaders supporting the development of VET pedagogy. The Swedish principals’ case study was part of a Master’s level subject that involved undertaking an AR project. The overall aim of the subject was to support a critical approach to principals’ professional practice. The participants in the AR projects were not alone in their learning. Academic facilitators are also learners during these projects (Olin et al. 2016, Olin & Pörn 2021).

Table 1 provides an overview of the data this article draws on.

Table 1. Data overview.

Cases	Recruitment	Participants	Duration	Data
Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers in one action research team Focus area: development of VET pedagogy	Response to an email to VET teachers inviting participation	5 Beauty Therapy teachers Private training organisation	14 months	9 meetings (one face to face and 8 via Zoom). All recorded and transcribed. 3 individual participant interviews, recorded and transcribed Site photographs Researcher field notes Documents provided by the AR team (assessment tasks, student surveys and survey results, teacher reflections on their own learning, and the outcomes of their AR project). Participant emails
Swedish principals divided into four action research teams Focus area – development of pedagogical leadership	Principals applied for the course	16 school principals from all school sectors: from preschool to VET Public and private organisations	14 months	16 reflection assignments written by participants

Following is an overview of each case study.

Case 1 – Australian teachers of Beauty Therapy

This project was one of four action research projects undertaken as part of a broader project: Leading pedagogical development in Vocational Education and Training (VET): middle leaders supporting teacher learning in the workplace. Each of these projects was facilitated and supported by two researchers, including the first author of this article. The action research project that we focus on here involved an action research team made up of VET teachers of Beauty Therapy. The teachers taught online and face to face. The project began with an online presentation about action research given by the academic facilitator, which ended with a discussion of the issues the teachers were facing that they would like to work on for the purpose of developing their VET pedagogy. Over a period of a few weeks, and together with the academic facilitator, the team then determined the issues that they would like to address in their AR project. These began with the framework of pedagogical development, and the basic questions: What are the issues you would like to work on in relation to your teaching practice? What problems are you encountering? Their main focus was on one particular cohort of students who were experiencing a range of difficulties due partly to the impact of the COVID pandemic. Throughout the AR project, team members worked to develop a greater understanding of the issues they were encountering in their work and professional lives, as well as approaches to better understand student needs and to better support student learning.

There was an ongoing change of membership within the Beauty Therapy teachers’ AR team (and we found this to be the case with three of the four AR teams). The team membership is outlined below (note pseudonyms are used).

Cycle 1 – Alex, Ava, and two others who later left the team

Cycle 2 – Alex, Ava, Casey

Cycle 3 – Alex, Ava, Casey

Data collected is outlined in Table 1.

Case 2 – Swedish principals and school leader education

A research-informed, systematic approach that includes actions has proven to be important in the work of improving professional practice (Forssten Seiser 2020), which motivated a school leadership course designed as an action research study for principals. This part-time Masters level subject was offered over 14 months. Participating principals explored and applied different leading actions in the schools they were assigned to lead. Together with research on school leading, the principals’ experiences (so-called practice theory, Lauvås and Handal 2015) formed the cornerstones of the education. In the process, the principals also examined an ethical perspective in their leading. The subject was designed as action research where the participating principals formed AR teams based on common issues and dilemmas emerging in their professional leading practices. Their questions and/or dilemmas were emailed in advance of the first meeting. The data in this case consist of assignments written by the participants.

The original plan was that the course would be carried out in the form of five physical two-day residentials which included meals and in-between times together. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was only possible to carry out three physical residentials, and two of the meetings were online. As a complement to these five prescheduled meetings, each AR team also met digitally, usually by themselves and occasionally with the facilitator (author 2 in this article) invited to participate.

These two case studies are in many ways quite different to each other. We see this difference as valuable in that it provides richer data that enables us to consider the research questions from different perspectives. There are also similarities between the cases. They are each grounded in an action research approach, with a theory of practice architectures framework. In each, the social-political arrangements and the relatings are important elements of the projects, with praxis development and reflection key aspects of the work. Each project took place over an extended period. In establishing the action research projects, the academic facilitators deliberately aimed to establish collaboration, dialogue, inquiry, and reflection (Salo et al. 2024) as components of each project.

For each of the projects, one of the authors undertook the role of ‘academic action researcher’ (Platteel et al. 2010, p. 432). As Olin et al. (2016) note, ‘These practices are characterised by being both researchers and, at the same time, facilitators of professional development who aim to support and empower teacher participants’ (p. 424). It is this professional development aspect, and how action research can support that development, that is the focus of this paper.

Analysis

Analysis was undertaken in stages using both inductive (data driven) and deductive (theory driven) thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2021b). Drawing on Braun and Clarke’s (2021b) reflexive thematic analysis, we have had an explicitly reflexive approach to identifying and interrogating the themes. We use Braun and Clarke’s (2021a) following definition of themes ‘Themes in reflexive TA are patterns of shared meaning, united by a central concept or idea’ (p. 241), noting that themes are often multi-faceted (Braun and Clarke 2021a). The cases were analysed separately initially, and then findings were combined to determine areas of similarity and areas of difference in the themes that emerged. In deliberately using a reflexive approach to our findings, we supported ourselves and each other to identify our own biases and prior understandings that might influence our analysis. This was particularly significant for the second research question.

Initially, the data for each case was examined in relation to the first research question: What, and in what ways, did Action Research team members identify that they learnt through their action research projects? We began by using an inductive approach to consider the first part of this question (what they learnt), and for the second part (in what ways they learnt) considered the three complementary conceptualisations of how learning is happening as described earlier: being stirred into practice; knowing how to go on; and distancing oneself from practice and reflecting (Rönnerman 2012, Kemmis et al. 2014b, pp. 56–58; Olin et al. 2020, p. 158).

For the second question what enabled and constrained that learning, we began using an inductive thematic analysis and then realised that many of the themes we identified fitted within the themes that we planned to use for the second stage using deductive analysis with the key themes identified by Salo et al. (2024): power and solidarity, recognition, trust, agency and time. We initially identified a number of themes in addition to these five, however with ongoing reflexive analysis both individually and together we identified that all themes either fit within the five themes identified above or were other elements of professional learning identified by Salo et al. (2024): collaboration, dialogue, inquiry and reflection.

Data provided by Swedish participants was translated to English by author 2. Where quotes are provided, and it is not clear which project a participant was part of, an initial is included after the quote: A for Australia and S for Sweden.

Findings and discussion

Turning to our first research question, we explore what, and in what ways, AR team members identified that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research projects. We begin by presenting what they learnt.

One of the things that both the VET teachers and the principals identified that they learnt was how to undertake an action research project. While for the academic facilitators this was used as a means to support educator learning, it was identified by almost all participants as a valuable aspect of their learning. Most participants indicated (unprompted) that they planned to include action research projects as an element of their future professional learning, and some noted that they planned to include action research as an element of the professional learning for their own organisation more broadly. This suggests that participants highly valued their experiences and learning as a result of undertaking AR projects.

As the foci of the AR projects were quite different, the specific things that the teams and the team members learnt varied. We present these findings separately in relation to each case study.

Australian VET teachers. The Australian project had an explicit focus on the development of teaching and learning, and participants identified some key learning in this area including supporting the development of student literacy; development of relevant and appropriate assessment tasks to both support and assess student learning; and additional approaches to supporting student learning. Alex was especially keen to be part of the project and articulated her reasons in one of the early meetings when the team was discussing the approach they would take:

It’s very common that in most RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] professional development for VET is not a common thing, or at least you know, it is that checkbox, it’s read a blog, watch something, look at whatever, a webinar, write it up and there you go. And that is all good and well, and we do end up doing a lot of our own PD [professional development], however, what I find, I think that I need support in is, implementing something. Like it’s all good enough for me to hear it and go yep that was really interesting, but if I’m the only one implementing this and it’s not across the whole RTO then it’s sort of an uphill battle and I’m doing one thing, everybody else is doing the other thing, and so, how do we get that married across? And then you end up, you who went to the PD and learn something new, and wanting to implement, you kind of go, ‘meh no one else is doing it so I’ll go back to my old thing’.

In addition to working together to implement changes to their teaching and assessment practices, team members also reported learning about themselves, about each other, and about the students they were working with. In initial meetings, participants were struggling with the demands of their work, to the extent that they mentioned several times they were feeling reluctant to come to work. Throughout the project, participants learnt a lot about one particular student cohort, and on further reflection, about their work with students more broadly. In the final interview Ava noted:

we’ve learned how not to get in that situation again … we treat the students that we have now [a new cohort of students] as though they’re already, you know, professionals … and the lessons that we learned [from the AR project] have carried through. And we also recognise some of the things that were triggers for the students [previous cohort] to feel bad about themselves, which is why they acted out … And [prior to the AR project] I just don’t think we were aware of, of the things that impacted that cohort … I think we are [much more aware of student needs and experiences] now.

The reflection that they did together in relation to some unexpected outcomes of a student survey that they developed and implemented allowed them to also challenge themselves and each other to try to avoid preconceived expectations about students and to develop approaches that they might use in the future to support them with this.

Swedish Principals. The Swedish project had an explicit focus on the development of principals’ pedagogical leading and in the AR teams the principals agreed on key actions to trial in their local schools. By sharing their experiences from these trials, the principals developed an awareness of the complexity of the social practices that are undertaken in schools. This kind of awareness diminished the desire for quick fix-solutions with a single focus on seeking changes in the way teachers are conducting their profession. The principals learned that they needed to focus on their own actions and to change their way of leading (cf. the overall aim of CPAR). As Ebba noted

Our focus was initially exclusively on the work of the teachers and that they should change their ambitions and teaching, and how we with the support of this education would succeed in correcting them to improve. During the process the focus changed and it became more about our assignment as principals, our inner process [learning] and development.

The principals described how the dialogue in the AR teams changed over time and when they started to act as ‘critical friends’ this helped them progress both as individuals and as a group reflecting on their ethical stand and their own leading actions. Ann noted:

We began to think about the extent to which we, in our leadership but also in this team, play a moral masquerade where we try to find fault in the teachers’ work and defend our own leadership actions, or in the worst case, do not discuss them at all …

This reflection challenged the principals to think about how their declared ethics are realised in their daily practice in the form of their own actions. Furthermore, Ann uses the metaphor of playing a moral masquerade when defending principals’ leadership actions in relation to teachers´ work, by trying to find faults.

These specific aspects mentioned by Alex, Ann and Ebba can be understood as illustrating, both the critical, reflective stance of CPAR, and the complex and implicit relational aspects to be understood in terms of power/solidarity, recognition, trust and agency. In each of the two AR projects participants learnt a range of things related to their self-determined research focus. Due to space limitations, we do not provide explicit information here related to that learning, although to some extent it is apparent in the broader findings.

Next, we turn to the second part of the first research question: the ways that the action research team members learnt. Here, we used a deductive approach to data analysis and focus on the three approaches to learning identified by Olin et al. (2020): being stirred into practice, knowing how to go on, and distancing oneself from practice.

Being stirred into practice. All participants experienced being stirred into practice at the beginning of the projects. Initially, the academic facilitators stirred the participants into action research. However, over time, they also stirred themselves and each other into the practices of doing action research, as well as the many and varied practices associated with the specific projects that they undertook. Being stirred into (and at times stirring others into) the practices continued in some form throughout the projects. In the Swedish project one of the principals describes this in the following way

It is only during this meeting [the 3rd] that we collectively realise that we are just beginning to understand what action research entails, and that the research itself is happening within our research team and that this is more of a short-term effort, while the ultimate goal is a long-term project that may not be evident during this subject. We came to the conclusion that we need to think in two ways: what we need to change in our own leadership and what we ultimately want to achieve with this change.

Knowing how to go on. Participants came to know how to go on in different practices and at different stages of their learning. For instance, in the Australian project participants developed, administered and analysed a survey to better determine student needs. All participants had to learn how to do this and supported themselves and each other to develop these skills. At the end of the project, participants identified a broad range of areas where they now knew ‘how to go on’, including (but not limited to) research skill development (for example, developing, implementing and analysing surveys), reflective practice, and various teaching, leading and assessment practices. In the Swedish project, the principals came to value the action research projects and identified it as something that could be used in their leadership. Sandra notes:

I feel that this is an approach that has helped me to develop my thinking and I can also see how it has affected my actions. I think that action research is a useful approach in my future leadership. It would be exciting to lead teachers in similar projects.

Distancing oneself from practice. All participants distanced themself from their teaching and leading practices as a consequence of conducting action research. This emerged in the forms of collaborative inquiry as well as collective and individual reflections. When Lena (S) reflected on what happened on an individual level, she noted

This academic year has been a useful and educational journey where I have been challenged in my experiences, struggled with my view of people and (reluctantly) changed my leadership. I have gained insight into my weaknesses and what happens to me when I need to change behaviour. I have been forced into self-reflection and conscious path choices. It hasn’t always been fun - but I actually feel a bit wiser now.

Casey (A) focused on the value of gaining a range of perspectives on the issue they were addressing and noted:

I think, you know, being able to have some ideas, and [then] being able to hash it out with your peers, and as I say, with someone from outside of a beauty background, but looking at it more from an academic background, was really helpful.

Sandra, another of the Swedish participants, articulated her experience of the development of new knowledge as a result of experiences with her action research team in the following way:

True self-reflection requires challenging one’s own excellence – and in this I really recognise myself. With good self-esteem and a secure base of values, there is of course the risk of becoming complacent, which in turn can turn into cynicism and elitism. Research advocates collegial reflection, and thanks to my action research team, I now have a positive experience of being challenged in a safe context to change perspectives, change views and distance myself.

In many ways, by distancing oneself from practice, the participants were able to identify what was working to support themselves and their students, and to gain a greater understanding of how things worked.

The action research projects supported participants to experience being stirred into practice, knowing how to go on, and distancing oneself from practice. Moving between these three has been presented here as separate and linear. In reality, however, they were intertwined, with participants moving between all three in both case studies.

Exploring our second research question, we aim to identify specific arrangements that enabled and constrained professional learning within each of the case studies.

What enabled and constrained learning?

The elements identified by Salo et al. (2024) of collaboration, dialogue, inquiry and reflection were deliberately built into each of the action research projects by the academic facilitators. It is not surprising then that these elements were apparent in our findings. Due to limited space, here we note that our data showed strong evidence for all these elements, and focus a little more on collaboration and reflection because these elements were most apparent in both case studies.

Collaboration and reflection

Our findings show that participants highly valued collaboration and reflection for supporting their own learning. Additionally, in the Australian case study, Ava noted that the collaboration experienced through the AR project was of value beyond the project in that it brought the team together and established an ongoing practice of collaboratively working together to develop their teaching. In the Australian project, reflection questions formed part of the regular meetings, and in this way ongoing reflection was scaffolded. In the Swedish project, the theme or question that the AR team had agreed on became the driving force in their collaboration. Traditionally, the principal’s function is often a solitary role, and therefore, this collaboration was highly appreciated. Early in the process one principal expressed: ‘this [collaborative approach] seems like the right way to go’. In Australia, VET teachers are not required to undertake a university-level teaching qualification and the certificate that is required does not include reflection as part of the curriculum. However, one of the participants had a Bachelor-level teaching qualification, was completing a postgraduate teaching qualification and had a well-developed understanding and practice of critical reflection. She modelled this in meetings and over time reflective practice became quite apparent with all participants.

Time

Time was a key theme that emerged in relation to participant learning. Two aspects of time were especially apparent in our projects: time allocated, and time actually set aside by participants for professional learning.

Ava (A) identified finding time to focus on the AR project was a constraint to what they could achieve. She noted

We all had a really huge workload. And I was doing the instructional design stuff, as well as my full time teaching load…[undertaking additional work in own time] … and plus, I was studying … So we were all pretty under the pump, you know, with a very full time workload.

The need for deliberate scheduling to ensure time for the action research project was noted by many participants. For instance, Anna (S) noted

An important factor for the cooperation and collegial learning is that we decided that this work will and may take time. We planned, prioritised and marked the time in our calendars. We have all chosen to study a course that interests us. It affects our motivation and our will to develop and go forward.

Participants identified finding time to commit to the AR project (regardless of allocation, scheduling, and other commitments) as a crucial part of being involved in the action research projects and also noted the benefits were worth the time allocation. As you will note, aspects of time were also inherent in the four other themes discussed below.

Power and solidarity

Relationships of power and solidarity impacted on what the AR team members did, and how they did it, which in turn influenced their own learning and sometimes the learning of other team members. For the Australian project, there were a number of key elements to the relationships of power and solidarity between the AR team members. Each person’s experience as a teacher and their experience as a Beauty Therapist influenced their power, as well as their own sense of identity. For instance, when participants introduced themselves to the academic facilitators, they each indicated the number of years they had worked in the Beauty Therapy industry, as well as the number of years they had worked as a teacher. Other influences were their employment status (full time or part-time employment, casually or permanently employed), their previous learning experiences, and their prior experiences of working with other members of the AR team.

Changes in the Action Research teams. The development of solidarity was impacted to some extent by changing participation in the AR teams. For both the Swedish and the Australian case studies, the AR teams went through a number of membership changes over the period of the project. In Australia, two of the team members remained consistent throughout the project, two left the School during the project, and a new member (Casey) joined the School and the team part way through. Casey was learning about the AR project at the same time as she was learning her new role. These changes impacted on the work that the team were doing, especially initially. Ava (A) noted the difficulties that the team experienced when one person left, and the new team member (Casey) had to quickly come to terms with her new role and the student needs. The difficulties were alleviated to some extent because of a pre-existing collegial relationship between Casey and Alex.

Similarly, in the Swedish case study, only two of the four AR teams remained intact. In one team, three participants left the course which resulted in only two principals remaining in that AR team. This affected the team both positively and negatively. The remaining ones lacked the dynamic of the larger group but also saw advantages in being able to focus on a common issue. Previously, there was some disagreement about which issue was the most pressing to investigate. The third team lost one principal, which didn´t significantly affect the group as it occurred early in the process.

Power with and power over. Solidarity and ‘power with’ were the key aspects of power throughout both projects. The concept of ‘power over’ refers to a more authoritarian power of one group or individual with power over others. The concept of ‘power with’ has a focus on people working together collegially and non-hierarchically. For instance, Ava (A) mentioned how Casey (A), a newly employed teacher, provided her with support in a difficult situation with students. She went on to say ‘[no-one] always has it completely covered. We need our colleagues … I don’t think we can ever not have colleagues…’.

Although minimal, there was also some evidence of the use of ‘power over’. In the Australian project, of 15+ hours of transcripts (meetings, interviews) and other data, the only clear evidence of ‘power over’ is 2 sentences in an interview with the middle leader of the action research group when she revealed that she had insisted that the other participants be involved in the action research project. As noted above, all of the teachers were very busy. It wasn’t until an individual interview at the end of project that Ava mentioned she had done this. She noted ‘I felt guilty that I was asking them to commit more, you know, when they were already, they already felt that they were giving 100%’. Ava did not have a supervisory role in the team and had no positional authority; however, she was highly regarded by the Beauty Therapy team and in that sense there may have been some hidden power hierarchy. The key point to highlight here, though, is the strong collegiality and a sense of ‘power with’ within the team.

The Swedish principals explicitly identified the development of their own understandings in relation to a ‘power over’ stance. For instance, Ann (S) noted:

We started to talk about how our vision and ideas make us act in certain ways and that it is primarily in ourselves that change is needed if, in a longer perspective, we want to bring about change in the school. The conversations change from how we should ‘fix the teachers’ to how we should ‘fix ourselves’.

By the end of both projects, there was clear co-ownership of the processes and the outcomes of the AR project.

Trust

Trust in each other, and in the action research process enabled learning. Relational trust and especially interpersonal and interactional trust were particularly apparent.

In the Australian case, trust was influenced by the amount of time people were able to work together. This included working together in the present organisation, working together in a previous organisation, and working together in the AR project. There was also a trust in the competency of colleagues in relation to their knowledge and understanding of Beauty Therapy and the industry more broadly. The trust and solidarity between the teachers were palpable and developed further throughout the project. AR team members developed a sense of safety with the academic facilitator, with each other, and with the action research process. The AR team were at times addressing some difficult challenges together and working together to address these difficulties seemed to support the further development of trust. Alex noted: ‘… we do debrief together. Multiple times a day. I would have – my brain would have exploded already if we didn’t’. They were also able to critically reflect together in relation to the changes they were making, and the outcomes of those changes.

Similarly, Swedish principals developed trust between each other and with the academic facilitator. Agnetha (S) noted:

There is a sense of trust and being in safe hands that contributes to critical questions being asked, and that we dare to challenge each other with more developing and deeper questions. Ethical perspectives are given more time in our discussions, and we reflected more …

The increased trust was developed over time and through working together collaboratively. The Swedish principals referred to the collaboration in their AR teams, and acting as trusted critical friends, noting that this supported self-reflection as well as changed leadership actions. Ann noted ‘The safer I felt in the group, the more interested I became in supporting others in the group by listening in a more active way’.

Recognition

Recognition includes valuing of the contribution and capability of self and others. This was apparent throughout both case studies. There were many instances of this recognition, especially recognition of others. For instance, Ava (A) articulated this in an early interview ‘Deep down we want connection, we want to be understood, we want to be appreciated, and we do that for each other as colleagues.’ One of the many instances of this recognition occurred when Alex (A) introduced Casey (A) to the academic facilitators. Casey was employed some months after the project began, and Alex had worked with Casey in a previous organisation. In her introduction, Alex noted:

Casey has quite a few years of experience and she is a very, I say unique trainer. Not unique in the sense that every trainer is unique, but she brings a certain calmness to her classroom in the way that she presents and there’s knowledge that she has that I think, would be extremely beneficial to us to see this through, especially with. [this cohort of students]

Similarly, there was clear evidence of mutual respect and recognition between the Swedish principals. A joint reflection from five Swedish principals (Karin, Kristina, Emelie, Marie and Lill) noted

We have reasoned a lot about why the work in our group worked so well and have found it hard to specify exactly why, it seems like a combination of things. An important prerequisite is the courage and ability to examine oneself and to see oneself in a context. We have worked as a group and not as single individuals. Another important factor is that we have seen our differences and various abilities as strengths. Through our different ways of being pedagogical leaders, we get different perspectives … A tool that we have experienced as successful is acting as a ‘critical friend’. As critical friends, we have taken the time to really listen to each other and offer feedback and encouragement. This has given us great joy and a positive atmosphere in the group. It is important to feel listened to, and we have all been in the present.

Participants’ recognition of their own contributions was not as explicit, but it was apparent in places. In the VET teachers project participants identified the value of their own contribution at various stages, and especially when prompted to do so in the final interview.

Agency

For the purpose of data analysis, we interpreted agency as indication of a sense of ownership of, and responsibility for, the action research project, of the outcomes of the projects, and of their own learning throughout the project (and beyond). For instance, in the third meeting Ava (A) said:

I feel like we’re going to, we’re going to do this. I’m just going to do this. I’m going to get the forms done. And with [a teacher not in the project] and Alex’s discussion, we’ll work out when, and which unit to introduce them in.

The Swedish principals’ sense of agency was apparent initially in a limited way. However, over time, it became more deliberate and focused across a broader range of practices. One principal noted, in relation to that change:

When we met after our actions [in their daily practices], we saw similarities when we studied them together. What we had in common was that we asked questions and were curious, but the answers surprised us and gave us courage to move forward, although not quite in the direction we had expected.

The Swedish principals were taking responsibility for their own actions in the AR project and also supporting others in developing agency within their own contexts.

Inter-relationship of the themes

We have presented our findings against each of the themes; however, in analysing the data from each of the projects it became apparent that the key themes of power/solidarity, trust, recognition, agency and time were closely inter-related and influenced each other. As noted earlier, time is an element that influenced each of the themes in various ways. As Francisco et al. (2023) found, development of solidarity and trust is not automatic when people work together – but both did develop in each of the case studies reported in this article. The material-economic arrangements of scheduling repeated and regular meetings to work together on the project supported this development. For the Swedish principals, the material-economic arrangements of meeting in conference centres over more than one day and the associated non-work time to socialise and to meet each other separately to their work together (such as over a meal or drinks) was also valuable in supporting the development of positive relationships that in turn supported the development of trust and solidarity. Similarly, meeting regularly over a period of more than a year provided the cultural-discursive arrangements and the time needed to develop a shared language in relation to the issues they were exploring. For the Swedish principals, this included a shared theoretical language, a shared school development language, and a shared language associated with action research. For the Australian VET teachers, this included a shared VET language (especially for the newer teachers) and a shared language related to action research.

Discussion and conclusion

We commenced this article by addressing how an unreflective understanding of professional learning and its expected effects risks the use of ready-made courses without connections to the everyday practices of teachers and principals. Given the significant resources in terms of time, money, and people invested in educators’ learning, we argue that our findings are of great importance, especially in the face of extensive changes, such as the one currently looming in Sweden in the form of a new national structure for professional learning for principals, teachers and preschool teachers.

This article has focused on action research for supporting the professional learning of educators. In particular, we have explored two case studies where action research supported professional learning, and investigated what enabled and constrained that learning. Specifically, we considered two questions:

• What, and in what ways, did action research team members identify that they learnt as a result of undertaking action research projects?

• What enabled and constrained that learning?

We also aimed to consider whether the Professional Learning Framework developed by Salo et al. (2024) was of value in considering these questions. Turning to this second aim, we conclude that the framework contributed as a perspective highlighting both the multi-faceted aspects of professional learning as well as clarifying how these aspects enabled and constrained learning in the cases that we considered. In this way, the theoretical analyses contributed to both a more specific and also broader understanding of the learning process.

In relation to the first research question, AR team members learnt in three main areas: they learnt about undertaking action research projects, they learnt about the areas of focus that they chose and together agreed to investigate, and they learnt about themselves and other members of their AR team. They learnt in various and intertwined ways including through being stirred in to practice, coming to know how to go on, and distancing themselves from practice through individual and collaborative reflection. This means that they not only learnt in and through practice but also for practice, which implies going beyond practice when needed. The doubleness of better understanding what is going on by learning through being stirred into and knowing how to go on in practice, at the same time as being able to critically examine practice through dialogues with others and self-reflection, leads to learning that has the potential of changing practice in ways that are relevant and important for the participants taking part in it.

In relation to the second research question, our findings support the Salo et al. (2024) argument that collaboration, enquiry, dialogue and reflection provide a strong framework for educator learning. Participants in this study specifically highlighted the value of collaboration and reflection to support their learning. Time allocated, and time set aside by the participants themselves were necessities for being able to learn, which of course became a constraint when it was not possible to prioritise the action research work. Power issues between team members (such as status, collegial relationships or being new at work) influenced the participants’ individual opportunities to learn. However, the evidence strongly indicates that the participants highly appreciated the collaboration and interacted in power relations ‘with’ each other, rather than ‘over’ each other. This not only enabled learning but also became part of what was learnt by the participants: they realised the value of working together to be able to learn and make changes in their workplace. Trust, recognition, and agency were elements in the positive power-relations between participants that grew over time and were mentioned by participants as affordances for professional learning. These elements made it possible to deepen the reflection through critical questions and an awareness of differences. What seemed to take the longest time to develop was educator agency, to act wisely in relation to the situation and its complexities, and also to be able to recognise one’s own knowledge and contribution to the collaborative work. For policy makers, these findings may be disturbing since it means that shorter courses, so-called quick fixes, are not well-invested resources. However, if taken seriously, it also means that there are possibilities for sustainable and relevant learning and change, if time and possibilities to collaborate in critical ways are supported.

For the VET teachers, it is obvious that the learning happening through the AR projects went well beyond just meeting certification requirements (cf. Dymock and Tyler 2018). The AR team focus was on better supporting students’ learning, and specifically, how to support students’ learning through changing the teachers’ own preconceived expectations about their students. It also involved managing the stress associated with their work and with their teaching. With the help of each other and the facilitator, the teachers challenged themselves to go from ‘what works’ (Kennedy and Stevenson 2023), to new understanding about how their presumptions had to change for teaching to be transformed in a direction that would support their students from where they were, and not from where the teachers wished them to be. Thus, the question of ‘what works’ expanded to include reflections on how the teaching works for the students and for the teachers (how things work and for whom), as argued by Kaukko et al. (2020).

For the principals, the form of education, undertaken as an AR project, made it possible for these leaders to make connections between the training programme and their own practice of leading in their schools. Earlier research related to principals’ learning through a school leaders training programme revealed this to be difficult (Forssten Seiser and Söderström 2022). Learning how to apply a scientific approach (plan, trial, analyse, evaluate, re-plan, et cetera) and to use knowledge from relevant research and proven experiences in their profession was seen as important from the start by the principals as this is an expectation anticipated in the Swedish Educational Act (SFS 2010:800). However, the most important insights for the principals were achieved over time and had to do with development of greater insight into their own practices, and the importance of critical friends to support their learning. The principals discovered that they had to focus on their own actions and that social practices are complex and not possible to change quickly. Through the process of trialling changes in their schools, discussing the outcomes with their AR teams, reflecting together with their teams, their focus on ‘what works’ for the teachers changed. The principals developed a greater focus on how their own praxis informed leading practices were or were not supporting values and evidence informed changes at their schools. They became aware that what they initially thought worked, maybe didn’t work well for their teachers and in the long run for the pupils (cf. Kaukko et al. 2020, Forssten Seiser 2021).

Summarising the arrangements in the study, one can conclude that key themes identified in these case studies are relational. Edwards-Groves et al. (2010) argue that ‘“relational architectures” underpin all educational practice and that the education profession must thus be conceptualised as a praxis-oriented profession – that is, as a profession oriented towards the praxis of those who participate in it (and are affected by it) …’ (p.52). Salo et al. (2024) note that ‘[m]utual recognition of each other’s knowledge and competences are necessary conditions in relationships aiming for change and substantial transformation of practice’ (p. 11). This mutual recognition can support the ongoing development of trust. Time clearly becomes a necessary component for those processes to happen. It also becomes obvious that learning that has the power to positively transform educational practices for the benefit of all does not appear through transmissive models that are managerially imposed, as Kennedy and Stevenson (2023) warn against. The arrangements must be sensitive to, and open to, what is relevant to local needs. It also takes time to come to actions that are well adjusted to the situation and visions of the practice and its participants. The development of agency to transform practices grows slowly, as shown in these two case studies.

To conclude, the teachers and principals in these case studies were able to determine what works in their own context, and for themselves and their schools. They were able to understand how particular practices can enable and constrain positive change and to act on this understanding. The case studies show that through their involvement in action research the teachers and the principals were able to develop not only a greater contextualised understanding, of what works, how it works, and who it works for (Kaukko et al. 2020), but also the collective agency to make changes in their educational practices to better support themselves, their colleagues and their students. The relational practice architectures of power and solidarity, trust, recognition, and agency, together with time, were key in supporting educator learning and in supporting the positive changes that the educators chose to implement. By learning in, through and for practice, the aim of praxis development became realised.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).