Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

NLC Symposium,

DRAFT PAPER- please do not quote without authors’ permission

Shotgun Weddings, Arranged Marriages or Love Matches? An Investigation of Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Partnerships in England

Anne Campbell

LiverpoolHopeUniversity

Iris Keating

ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity

Abstract

This paper discusses a project, commissioned by the NationalCollege for School Leadership’s (NCSL) Networked Learning Group (NLG), which investigated the variety of partnerships, links and collaborations between Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

The paper draws on data gained through interview and interrogationof databases, questionnaire surveys and on fieldwork, which has generated a substantive number of case studies. It also uses material from the NSCL/NLG’s Spring Enquiry (2004). It would appear that no more than a third at most of the NLCs are in effective partnerships with HEIs. Nonetheless some excellent practice has been generated and many examplesare to be found in the final report, Campbell et al (2005)

A range of different partnerships exists between NLCs and HEIs varying in strength and quality andmutual commitment. Partnerships take many forms and the paper explores the variety of modes of collaboration, with origins which might be geographical, historical or serendipitous or be born of personal interaction.

The paper looks at the notion of structures which might facilitate linkage and examines attitudes and perceptions on both sides which appear to have been influential. The issue of sustainability, when NLG funding ends is discussed and in that context, the paper finally returns to one of the more popular models of collaboration- the action research model, which is argued as a successful way of returning to teachers some autonomy over their professional development much of which has been lost in recent years.

Shotgun Weddings, Arranged Marriages or Love Matches? An Investigation of Networked Learning Communities and Higher Education Partnerships in England

Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) first appeared in England in 2002 as part of the government funded initiatives of the National College of School Leadership (NCSL). This paper reflects on research of the first two cohorts of NLCs, circa 135 NLCs. NLCs consisted of groups of schools which bid for funding to develop learning and teaching strategies suitable for the context of 21st Century schools. Many of the successful bids addressed recent developments in learning and teaching styles such as ‘accelerated learning’, Smith (1999) or consideration of Gardner’s (1983) ‘multiple intelligences’ or Goleman’s (1995) promotion of ‘emotional intelligence’. There was a major focus on the use of Information and Communications Technology, (ICT), to support and promote learning.

The emphasis was on teachers’ engaged in inquiry-based learning and practitioner research and this initiative strongly promoted teachers’ learning from each other in professional learning communities and networks such as those described by Frost et al (2000), McLaughlin (2004) and Bolam et al (2005). There were direct links to Australian developments, Sachs and Groundwater-Smith (1996) and work in developing and researching ‘communities of practice’ and ‘situated learning’, Lave and Wenger (1991).

The research project sought to investigate the variety of partnerships that existed between Networked Learning Communities (NLCs) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The project was predicated on the understanding that there was a range of collaborations between NLCs and HEIs and that these partnerships would vary in both strength and quality and mutual commitment. Some may legitimately be styled ‘partnerships’; others are more usefully described as ‘ links’ or ‘connections’.

The aimsof the project were threefold:

  • to identify the range of NLC/HEI partnerships; we were interested to discover the nature of innovative, creative and novel partnerships that have emerged, and continue to develop, between these two bodies.
  • to explore how best practice in these partnerships could be shared more widely; we wished to provide a legacy that would inform and guide future developments in this and allied fields.
  • to work in tandem with the NLC team

Methodology

Methodological approaches used in the investigation were eclectic, flexible and drew on quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to maximise opportunities for data collection and evaluation

The project used existing data held by the NCSL and new data gathered from the stakeholders. Team members worked within the BERA Ethical Guidelines ( and fully observed all the legal requirements for data protection.

Originally the following methods of data collection were identified as being appropriate:

  • an interrogation of the NCSL database to discover the existing and planned relationships between HEIs and NLCs
  • the classification and analysis of those links and relationships
  • a questionnaire to explore the nature of the identified relationships
  • the identification of a small sample (six) of different relationships for face-to –face or telephone interviews

In reality the project developed a much wider brief than that outlined above. As the initial data from the database was analysed a number of discrepancies were identified and several interesting potential pathways appeared which pointed to the need for further investigation. The richness of data that could be gathered merited further ‘mining’. The result was a deeper investigation. N total13 mini case studies,1 major case study and about 30 micro studies have been made, an informational framework devised and a ‘Think Piece’ produced. The detail of these investigations is to be found in the final report, Campbell et al (2005).

A consequence of re-shaping the brief is, we believe, a much better picture of the collaborative landscape. Some links remain unexplored due to lack of response or inaccurate information about contacts and change of personnel. .

Research began in summer of 2004. Initially, there were two thrusts to the enquiry: a quantitative investigation into how many NLCs had indeed formed productive links, or positive partnerships with one or more higher education institutions; a qualitative study of the nature of such links and of the factors which might be said to influence the formation of links or stronger partnerships. This paper concentrates on the latter, qualitative, investigation and offers conclusions and reflections as to the nature of successful partnerships. We attempt to identify some of the reasons why links were not forged.

Thinking About Linking: Modes of Collaboration

Each NLC/HI link is unique. Connections investigated in this project have their own personalities and purposes and any attempt to impose a rigid conceptual framework would be artificial. There is, however, a notional matrix of collaboration. One might begin with an attempt to quantify using a simple two-dimensional graph. A horizontal line might represent a continuum showing the degree of HEI involvement and a vertical line would signify possible models of collaboration. Unfortunately the varying forms of collaboration overlap to such an extent that the matrix swiftly becomes multi-dimensional and incapable of realistic presentation. Therefore, it is simpler to begin by restricting any account of collaboration to the two dimensions: the continuum and the models.

The continuum might be said to start (or finish) with the highest level of HEI engagement. In this context, two preliminary questions might be asked. The first concerns who initiated the bid and/or who initiated the collaboration. The second relates to how the finance is apportioned or controlled. Apportionment and control are far from the same thing. Examples can be found where higher education, having initiated the bid, subsequently takes control of the money, but then apportions it in ways that are beneficially generous to the members of the NLC. In another example, the NLC might control the finance but allocate up to 50% of the available money on purchase terms to an HEI which then works to an agreed agenda. These two examples would see movement along the continuum, but still with an emphasis on a high level of HEI involvement. That emphasis would be rare. As one proceeds towards the lower end of a continuum of involvement, then the NLC generates a range of activities in some or all of which higher education is involved to greater or lesser degree. This involvement could be, for example, as in-service provider, critical friend, conference organiser, evaluator or mentor or several of these. Towards the furthest end of the continuum, HEI involvement becomes increasingly peripheral. An NLC might have a specific need, such as an evaluation, or a project to mentor, or some accreditation need or, to be truly minimalist, the hiring of a single guest speaker on a single occasion. Even the examples are subject to degrees of variation: accreditation can be a substantial enterprise or something for the relatively few teachers who want it; mentoring could be for one teacher who is basing research study on some feature of the NLC’s work or it could be for substantial numbers of teachers on a BPRS or Masters programme. Issues of trust and power in relationships have relevance here. Everton and Galton (2004) discuss issues of power in their review of the changing roles of university tutors and cite Carr and Kemmis (1983) who saw one virtue of collaborative networks of teachers working together as enabling the power relationship between schools and universities to be readdressed so that rather than merely supplying the knowledge base, the university tutor has to develop mentoring and counselling skills to support individual teachers’ planning and reflection.

As a complication, another way to look at modes of NLC/HEI links is to take a geographical perspective. Most cases are straightforward: the link is with a near or obvious partner, and it is unsurprising to find that this model predominates. There are, however, interesting examples to be found of ‘distance’ or ‘outreach’ models HEIs have shown themselves perfectly willing to collaborate in such cases and where an NLC requires expertise which is not locally available, then there is nothing to stop it working successfully with a distant partner. It is also the case that the distant partner might take the initiative. In that way, ‘distant’ tends to become better described as ‘outreach’. A third geographical variant is the ‘distributed’ or ‘dispersed’ model, where there are several HEI partners. The former term implies a measure of strategic determination while the latter suggests that the links have owed much to serendipity or casual circumstance. Whatever the origins, the characteristic of this model is quantity: there are a number of HEI links, forged for a variety of reasons. There are also to be found intended and actual international links. Thus will be seen the multi-dimensional nature of quantitative involvement.

It is the qualitative nature of collaboration that is perhaps the more interesting. A useful starting hypothesis could be to argue that three models emerge:

  • the action research or practitioner enquiry model
  • the customised CPD model
  • the special purposes model

Again, alas, there are degrees of overlap which militate against any simple presentation. For example, the special purpose could be the use of an HEI to provide mentoring for a group action research project – a project valuable and valued in itself but nonetheless seen as peripheral to the multi-faceted work of the NLC. However, as a generalisation, the three models serve as useful descriptors.

Other good examples of a ‘special purpose’ would be an evaluation of the whole or a part of an NLC’s work or the running of a school based Masters degree or modules of such, generated by the work of the NLC. Where these are the only collaborations or represent the most substantial and significant part of an HEI’s involvement, with possible occasional and small scale spin-offs, it is arguably fair to designate such activity as ‘special purpose’.

In other cases, however, some of the above examples are to be found within a much larger portfolio of in-service or continuing professional development activity. In such cases, an HEI might provide some actual teaching or training or might broker these things; or might organise conferences, prepare teachers for conferences, give demonstration lessons, offer workshop activities, find guest speakers and much more.

HEIs are not alone in the provision of such services. Indeed they appear to be in the minority. LEAs are equally available, private consultants are often used and many NLCs make provision from within their own ranks. If all else fails, the NCSL has assisted. Where HEIs appear to come into their own more is when the model to emerge is the action research model and from evidence from the Spring Enquiry, (2004: 4), it would appear that perhaps 64% of NLCs have some action research activity. That is not to say that there are not LEAs or private consultants or, indeed NCSL facilitators more than capable of advising or supervising action research; there certainly are. However, it is higher education which has both the capability and the capacity to assist with action research. This is discussed and illustrated in Day and Hadfield’s (2004) article on ‘the power of action research’ in their collaboration within the Primary Schools Learning Network in Milton Keynes which was aso one of the project’s case studies. The collaboration aimed to give ownership for development back to teachers and they identified the ‘creative tension’ in the alliance between teachers, administrators and academics mediated by skills and abilities based on moral responsibility, critical friendship and trust.

We learn from the four years of the Best Practice Research Scholarships programme (2000-2004) that over 70% of the mentoring came from higher education, Furlong et al (2003). Prior to that a number of universities had set up, or joined, action research networks as described in McLaughlin et al (2005). Thus there may be found within higher education not only capacity, but experience and tradition. There is also a degree of hunger. As all universities, not just the older ones, strive to increase research activity, then the willingness to engage with schools for research purposes has grown accordingly. Indeed the qualitative nature of much of such research and its direct involvement with schools has made practitioner enquiry a focus for many newer universities. Meanwhile, in both old and new, a body of researchers has developed, prepared to champion the merits of teacher research, that is to say teachers doing research into their own practice, not simply using the evidence of research done on them and their classrooms, important though that is. Arguably the more teachers research their own practice, the more evidence they provide for other teachers. Indeed the evidence from this project suggests that about 60% of teachers in networks draw upon research or research literature. For a convincing argument of how teachers and research can interact effectively see Saunders’ editorial (2004) in the double special edition of Teacher Development celebrating teacher researchers. It may seem a contentious statement, but it is arguable, at least, that it is in this model of action research where NLCs have insufficiently exploited higher education.

General Factors Influencing Collaboration

It would appear that only a minority of NLCs have engaged in collaborative activity with HEIs. One explanation may lie in misperceptions, by both parties, of what HEIs can contribute, and equally what they can’t. These misperceptions are attributable to a number of general factors.

It is rare to find a school, certainly one within an NLC, which is not in some form of Initial Teacher Training (ITT) partnership with at least one HEI. To that extent, therefore, a link is already established. Moreover, relationships are generally good, as Ofsted would attest, and since most new teachers take up their first post within a radius of 20 or 30 miles of where they trained, most schools are populated by several teachers loyal to their training institutions. For their part, headteachers recognise that participation in ITT gives them at minimum a valuable resource for recruitment and good opportunities for talent spotting, and at best a rewarding all-round professional development experience. Within higher education, wherever the training provision is well regarded, reflected in TTA OFSTED judgements, then a good reputation enhances credibility. Yet it would appear that ITT has played only a very small part in building links between NLCs and higher education. This relative insignificance owes much to the structures and purposes of higher education, as will be discussed later. However, the bottom line position is that in establishing a link NLCs interface much more with the CPD and research arms of higher education.

Evidence from the case studies carried out in this project indicate the frequency with which a link has been forged as a result of personal contact or personal initiative. This can be as random as an LEA adviser’s studying for a higher degree, or good experience on an in-service course or a chance meeting at a conference. The NCSL/NLG’s own perceived requirement, though arguably misread, that an NLC’s application should specify a higher education link had mixed impact. It alienated some, but prompted others into ‘shotgun marriages’, and the sometimes resultant ‘quickie divorce’. Others took longer ‘arranged marriages’ based on a considered review of benefits and others were lucky enough to strike up ‘love matches’. What is probable is that a sizeable majority, approximately 70% of NLCs ultimately honoured this requirement more in the breach than the observance. In the light of what is said above it is interesting that many, whether breachers or observers, appear to have simply plumped in their original bid nominations for either an ITT partner, or a personal contact. Although the ITT connection, as explained, played little part in subsequent developments, the theme of “personality” remained dominant. Successful partnerships evolved as the case studies of the project reveal. People clicked and things happened. The two parties trusted and respected each other.