Expanding Organizational Routines in Professional Learning Networks for Science Teacher Educators

Contribution
Learning in, by and between organizations is closely related to the dynamics of organizational routines (Becker, 2020; Göhlich et al., 2018; Kallemeyn, 2014). Learning is not only a matter of breaking old routines. It is also a matter of learning new routines. In this paper we will discuss how routines expand in professional learning networks (PLN) for science teacher educators (Feldman, 2000; Feldman et al., 2021; Howard-Grenville et al., 2016). More specific this paper seeks to explore how Engeström’s theory of expansive learning can be fruitful to understand how science teacher educators engage in new PLN-routines (Carpenter et al., 2022; Engestrom, 2016; Engeström, 2001; Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Feldman, 2000; Poortman et al., 2022). Researchers in the field of Organizational Education have mentioned the theory of expansive learning as an example of theory of organizational learning (Engel & Göhlich, 2022). But it is still limited how much the theory has been discussed in relation to recent research on routine dynamics. An organizational routine is defined as: ‘a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors’ (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). Some researchers have described organizational routines as a state of “truce” following conflicts or tensions in the organization (Nelson & Winter, 1982). This is where the theory of expansive learning has a potential of offering another perspective of the dynamics of routines. According to Engeström and Sannino, tensions and contradictions are drivers of change and learning in organizations (2010, p. 7) and expansive learning is a process of working out and resolving contradictions in the activity to be transformed (Engeström, 2015, p. xxiii).

The background of the paper is a 4-year longitudinal study (2023-2026) of an emerging interorganizational network in the field of science teacher education in Denmark called Naturfagsakademiet (NAFA) (English translation: Danish Academy of Science Education : https://nafa.nu/about-nafa/ ).. A central part of NAFA is establishing a PLN across the six university colleges as a new way of organizing for collaboration. According to Poortman et al. (2022, p. 96) a PLN can be defined as: ”any group who engage in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice in order to improve teaching and learning”. In their framework” boundary crossing” is as one of the processes in a PLN (see also Engeström et al., 1995).

In the process of establishing a PLN, and crossing boundaries, there is a need for the involved science teacher educators to expand the organizational routines they already are a part of. According to Akkerman and Bakker (2011, p. 133) boundaries are sociocultural differences between practices leading to discontinuities in action or interaction. Crossing boundaries can also be described as a process of knotworking (Engeström, 2008) where the science teacher educators across university colleges are loosely connected and are tying, untying and retying together seemingly separate threads of activity in the PLN. The aim of consolidating a new collaboration routine can be viewed as a matter of expansive learning (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). This leads to the research question we want to explore in this paper:

How can theory of expansive learning contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of organizational routines in a professional learning network of science teacher educators?

We will discuss the research question using the study of NAFA as a case.

Method
The empirical background of the paper is a 4-year longitudinal study (2023-2026) of an emerging professional learning network in the field of science teacher education in Denmark called Naturfagsakademiet (NAFA). NAFA is a national program supported by Novo Nordisk Fonden and VILLUM FONDEN with more than 25 million Euros in the period from 1st August 2021 to summer 2028. The main objective of NAFA is to enhance knowledge sharing and knowledge creation among science teaching professionals at different educational levels, both teacher education and primary and lower secondary schools. Our research project is following the development of NAFA with particular focus on the collaboration and knowledge sharing among the participating science teacher educators. Our research project is called Longitudinal Study of the Knowledge Ecology in NAFA and it consists of an ethnographic part and social network analysis (SNA) part. The ethno-graphic part is investigating how routines in NAFA are enacted in different settings such as PLC meetings both online and physical (Neale, 2021; Ybema et al., 2009) Currently we have collected 61 hours audio- and video-recordings, and we have 2318 pages of transcribed data, including field-notes. We have also interviewed some of the science teacher educators (N=7, 2024) asking them about their experiences of participating in the PLCs of NAFA and observed PLC meetings physi-cally [29:30 hours, 2024]. From the empirical material we will give examples of tensions and boundary crossing to explore have the routines expands in the professional learning network.

Expected Outcomes
The theory of expansive learning can contribute with new insights in routine dynamics in two ways. First, to understand how collaboration routines expand and second as an alternative perspec-tive on routines understood as a state of ‘truce’ in organizations by instead highlighting the im-portance of tensions and contradictions in the consolidation of routines. Especially the analytical concepts of boundary crossing and knotworking help to understand how the science teacher educa-tors are implementing and consolidating the new PLN-routines in the university colleges. The analysis of the empirical material from our observations and interviews also shows how arti-facts are vital organizing the PLN and establish the new routines such as the use of a Teams plat-form with different folders, inspirational materials, collaboration agreements, theme reports, meet-ing agendas etc. These artifacts cross boundaries in the PLN (across the six university colleges). The interviewed science teacher educators explain how they work together, when and how often they meet, facilitate the meetings, invite experts to the meetings, include pre-service and in-service students in their activities, plan instruction, make decisions and communicate with science teacher educators from other university colleges. The meetings we have observed are quite differ-ent in how they are enacted although they all work with the same overall theme (such as techno-logical literacy) and we also see how the part of doing inquiries together seems limited. In the pa-per presentation we will discuss the possible implications of the findings for the further develop-ment of PLN-routines for science teacher educators.

References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Edu-cational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435 Becker, M. C. (2020). Organizational Routines and Organizational Learning. I L. Argote & J. M. Levine (Red.), The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning (s. 506–520). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263362.013.4 Carpenter, J. P., Krutka, D. G., & Trust, T. (2022). Continuity and change in educators’ profession-al learning networks. Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09411-1 Engel, N., & Göhlich, M. (2022). Organisationspädagogik: Eine Einführung. Kohlhammer Verlag. Engeström, Y. (2008). From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work (1. publ.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619847 Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in Expansive Learning: LEARNING WHAT IS NOT YET THERE. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316225363 Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptual-ization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002 Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (Second edition.). University Press. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529 Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620 Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L., Dittrich, K., Rerup, C., & Seidl, D. (Red.). (2021). Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340 Göhlich, M., Schröer, A., Weber, S. M., & Engel, N. (with Göhlich, M., Schröer, A., & Weber, S. M.). (2018). Handbuch Organisationspädagogik (Bd. 17). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07512-5 Howard-Grenville, J. A., Rerup, C., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2016). Organizational routines: How they are created, maintained, and changed (Bd. 5). Oxford University Press. Kallemeyn, L. M. (2014). School-level organizational routines for learning: Supporting data use. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2013-0025 Nelson, R. R & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press. Poortman, C. L., Brown, C., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). Professional learning networks: A concep-tual model and research opportunities. Educational Research, 64(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1985398