DRAFT ONLY
The National College for School Leadership
Taking a Kaleidoscopic View; new
directions for practitioner research in
networked learning contexts
Karen Carter
Networked Learning Group, NCSL
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003
DRAFT – not for reproduction without the author’s permission
Comments and feedback are welcome and should be addressed to:
karen.carter@ncsl.org.uk
1
DRAFT ONLY
Taking a Kaleidoscopic View; new directions for practitioner research in networked learning
contexts
Karen CARTER
National College for School Leadership, U.K.
ABSTRACT: In accounting for the challenges of supporting practitioner research within a large scale
national initiative, this paper explores the new directions taken to create a collaborative context for
school-based enquiry within the National College for School Leadership’s Networked Learning
Communities programme. Using illustrative examples from the work of the programme, the paper will
examine the pivotal role of practitioner research in supporting the development of enquiry-based
leadership practice at all levels, within, across and between schools as learning communities.
Engagement with a variety of forms of classroom, school and networked research will be considered,
where it is argued that one new direction for practitioner research lies in the adoption of an eclectic
mix of action-oriented enquiry methodologies, including, action research, action learning and
appreciative enquiry. The paper concludes that, within practitioner enquiry contexts, effective schoolto-school and network-to-network learning and knowledge sharing requires a kaleidoscopic view of the
kinaesthetics of learning and the networking of knowledge. This in turn, suggests the need for a new
perspective on practitioner research which re-configures the enquiry process and its outcomes within
a networked model of knowledge generation and transfer.
Introduction
In contributing to the multiple-perspectives debate around the theme of ‘New Directions in
Practitioner Research’ (Noffke et al. 2003) the discussion which follows aims to articulate the
central role given to practitioner research in the National College for School Leadership’s
strategies for supporting the leadership and professional development of practitioners within
the school sector in England. More specifically the paper will explore the collaborative
context for school-based practitioner enquiry which has been created within the College’s
Networked Learning Communities (NLC) programme. Using illustrative examples from the
work of the programme, the paper will examine the pivotal role of practitioner research in
supporting the development of enquiry-based leadership practice at all levels, within, across
and between schools as learning communities, and consider some of the key challenges of
supporting practitioner research within a large-scale national initiative.
The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) has been created to support and
develop England’s 25,000 headteachers, as well as the thousands of teachers and others
with leadership roles and aspirations in our schools (NCSL, 2001:1). First and foremost,
then, the College is about educational leadership for school leaders, and is committed to
generating an applied research agenda that will arise from and support the practice of
leadership in schools. Leadership, though conceptually elusive is, quite rightly, in fashion.
Managed change, structures, hierarchies and accountabilities still have their place, but the
2
DRAFT ONLY
new language is also about, capacity, creativity, teams, organizational redesign,
collaboration, flexibility, networks and transformation – and these are in the domain of
leadership (Jackson & Southworth, 2001).
‘NCSL exists to make a difference through the development of leadership - and that
difference is about school improvement (and increasingly, school transformation),
strengthening and deepening leadership, building professional learning communities and
improving life chances for children’ (Jackson, 2002:46). The work of the College is, therefore,
characterised by a commitment not only to knowledge creation and sharing (which are seen
as the prime functions of research), but also to an action orientation - to the application and
utilisation of knowledge.
The National College has the potential to bring real benefits to school leaders and the
wider profession. We are in a unique position to collect evidence to inform policy.
We intend to make the College a respected source of advice to government and
policy-makers on leadership issues. We will do this by developing our knowledge
base and by engaging in dialogue with the profession. (NCSL, 2001a:1)
Our developing work in this field, is centred upon a conviction that the action orientation of
professionally-focused enquiry provides a powerful medium for individual and organisational
learning and capacity building amongst whole ‘communities of leaders’ (Barth, 1988; Day et
al. 1998) and across and between schools as ‘learning communities’ (Stoll & Fink, 1996;
Joyce et al., 1998; Lieberman, 1999). The Networked Learning Communities programme
also has a concern to generate wider system-level learning, to which the processes and
outcomes of practitioner enquiry work make a direct contribution, through a process we have
termed ‘learning exchange’. These processes involve accumulating and making sense of the
learning emerging from the work of the NLCs and re-configuring it to make it dynamically
useable – both for those within and outside the programme. This kaleidoscopic view of the
process of generating dynamic representations of learning within Networked Learning
Communities and the wider system, is a key contribution which the programme aims to make
to current thinking and practice in knowledge management at the system level. In this regard,
accessing the knowledge-base which underpins the work of school-based leadership
practitioners and providing a context for the expression of practitioner voice on matters of
both educational policy and practice, is seen to be crucial to the achievement of current
system-wide aspirations for school transformation and sustainable improvement, because
as Stoll (2001) suggests:
3
DRAFT ONLY
While society as a whole, policy makers and others outside schools have their own
important role to play in helping enhance schools’ capacity for learning, ultimately the
key players are those within schools because they know their schools best. (p.3).
Hence, our work is characterised by two core fields of commitment. The first is to the
involvement of the voice of school leaders, relevance for practice and a commitment to
enquiry-based leadership - we start from the premise that what is known about school
leadership in action is out there, being lived out daily by the leaders in our schools.
The
second is an orientation towards innovation, action and applied research; to designing
interventions, working with schools, studying what works well and why – in the belief that
through sharing what is known and applying best ideas we can further advance both
leadership and school improvement understandings (Jackson & Southworth, 2001). In
summary, there are a number of generic themes which have underpinned the College’s
work in designing its development and research programmes and its strategies for
supporting the professional and leadership development of the teaching profession in
England, these themes represent significant fields of commitment in their own right.

Developing enquiry-based leadership

Linking research and the practice of leadership

Exploring new forms of leadership learning

Making strategic connections and network links

Designing planned interventions for transformational purposes
The Networked Learning Communities Programme; the background
NCSL is committed to developing collaborative, capacity-building and sustainable learning
programmes - the Networked Learning Communities programme is one illustration of this
commitment.
The nature of the NLC programme as a large-scale, national initiative is
characterised by the detail of the population which constitutes its participant-base. The first
cohort of 40 Networked Learning Communities (Cohort 1a) was launched in September 2002
with a further 45 joining in January 2003 (Cohort 1b). Approximately 1,000 schools from all
phases are represented, involving approximately 250,000 pupils. 77 LEAs across England
currently have Networked Learning Communities operating within them – with 25% of these
being NLCs that straddle more than one LEA. Additionally, in September 2003 a further 26
NLCs have joined the programme, taking the total number of networks engaged in the
programme to over a 100.
4
DRAFT ONLY
Networked Learning Communities is a development and research programme focused upon
working with clusters of schools who, in turn, are working in partnership with others to
enhance the quality of pupil learning, professional development, and school-to-school
learning.
We have drawn from the OECD Lisbon Seminar (reported in Hopkins, 2001) in
defining NLCs as follows:
Networked Learning Communities are purposefully led social entities that are
characterised by a commitment to quality, rigour and a focus on outcomes. They are
also an effective means of supporting innovation in times of change. In education,
Networked Learning Communities promote the dissemination of good practice,
enhance the professional development of teachers, support capacity building in
schools, mediate between centralised and decentralised structures, and assist in the
process of re-structuring and re-culturing educational organisational systems.
(Jackson, 2002a: 2)
The NLC programme is designed to improve learning opportunities for pupils and to support
the development of schools as professional learning communities.
It places teachers,
leaders and schools at the heart of innovation and knowledge creation within the profession
and enables the development of local, context-specific practices and solutions that can be
explained and interpreted by schools in other contexts – at the heart of knowledge networks.
NLCs act as critical friends to one another and each has an elected external partner, which
may include Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), Local Education Authorities (LEAs) or
community groups.
The strategic purpose of the NLC programme is to generate learning – about ‘networked
learning’, knowledge management and learning exchange – for the programme and for the
wider system. The unique characteristic of the programme is ‘networked learning’. NLCs are
committed to ‘learning from, with and on behalf of each other’ as underpinning values within
the work of the programme. Networked learning applies particularly to ‘learning on behalf of
each other’, where it is understood that we can add value to the networks and learn more
about networked learning through the exchange of learning (or knowledge management)
processes. This process of learning exchange is the dimension of the work that relates to the
ways learning is drawn from what networks do and know, from beyond the programme
(publicly available knowledge), and from collaborative study and enquiry processes within
and between networks.1
5
DRAFT ONLY
The NLC programme is designed to encourage change through learning at multiple
levels of the education system. In fact, what makes the programme distinctive from
traditional approaches to raising standards is its founding premise that a focus on one
or two aspects of teaching and learning will not build the system-wide capacity for
continuous adaptation and improvement upon which long-term success depends.
(DEMOS, 2002:2)
The Scaffolding for the Programme
A key feature of the distinctiveness of the programme design, is its orientation towards
building system-wide capacity for continuous adaptation and improvement, through an
emphasis on encouraging change and development at multiple levels within the education
system. The conceptual framework which underpins this design provides ‘the scaffolding’ for
the programme and for networked learning activity within the NLCs. This scaffolding also
provides a multi-layered context for participant engagement in practitioner research as well
as providing a framework for programme-level research and enquiry. It is based upon the
concept of six ‘Levels of Learning’ (NCSL, 2002).
Each Network has chosen an evidence-informed approach to improving pupil learning as the
unifying focus for their collaboration. Thereafter, the programme is built around six levels of
learning, nested or interrelated so that each adds value to the others:

Pupil learning (a pedagogic focus)

Adult learning (with professional learning communities as the aspiration)

Leadership learning (at all levels, particularly collaborative headteacher learning)

Organisational learning (progressive redesign around learning principles)

School-to-school learning (and between communities of practice)

Network-to-Network learning (a programme priority)
There are also three non-negotiable principles, which are: moral purpose – a commitment to
success for all children; enquiry - evidence and data-driven learning and models of shared
and distributed leadership. In summary, the Networked Learning Communities programme
can be characterised in the following terms.

It is enquiry driven and emphasises knowledge creation and evidence-informed
practice

It is led by participants, promoting a high degree of ‘ownership’

It is data rich, establishing baseline surveys and other data sources for all
participants, and models innovation in data management for network schools
6
DRAFT ONLY

It stimulates and supports the diffusion of knowledge and capacity across
networks, rather than defining effective practice and disseminating it through
vertical channels of support and accountability (NCSL, 2003)
It is this framework, built around the concept of six levels of learning, three core principles
and three key characteristics of networked learning activity, which provides the ‘scaffolding’
for the programme and the context for both programme-level research and enquiry and the
engagement of NLC participants in practitioner research and enquiry. In the light of this, the
work of the programme is, in turn, strategically and operationally driven, in both its
development and research domains, by three key questions which guide NLC activity. How is
programme activity: supporting the development of networks?; helping us to learn about
networked learning?; enabling the programme to influence policy?
Pupil Learning
Influence Policy
Enquiry Driven
Network
Development
Participant Led
Networked
Learning
Network-to- Network
Learning
Adult Learning
*Distributed Leadership
*Moral Purpose
*Enquiry
Data Rich
Lateral
Knowledge
Diffusion
Leadership Learning
School-to-School
Learning
School-wide
Learning
Figure 1: Networked Learning Communities – The Scaffolding
7
Learn about
Networked
Learning
DRAFT ONLY
The Methodological Orientation of Practitioner Enquiry within the Programme
The programme is committed to inside-out change processes (Day et al. 1990; Dadds, 1996;
Hopkins, 2002). There is an equally strong commitment to coherence–making through joint
learning, to sustainability and capacity building (Hopkins & Jackson, 2002; Hadfield et al.,
2002) and to reflective, problem solving and knowledge creating approaches (Hopkins, 2001;
Jackson, 2002b). We seek to act out co-constructed learning and contextual enquiry. The
template that we apply to all the work of the NLC programme is drawn from the parity we
attach to three fields of knowledge (NCSL, 2002).
This model of learning provides the
epistemological basis for the methodological orientation of our work within the ‘collaborative
action enquiry’ paradigm.
Practitioner knowledge
we start from what people
know, the knowledge that
people bring to the learning
table
Publicly available
knowledge
the theory and research
publicly available to be
drawn into learning
environments
The knowledge we
create together
through collaborative
enquiry
Figure 2: A Model of Learning - The Three Fields of Knowledge
In our understanding, ‘action enquiry’ embraces a number of varying approaches including
‘action research’ (e.g. Lewin, 1946; Elliott, 1991), ‘action learning’ (e.g. Revans, 1980; McGill
& Beaty, 1992) and ‘appreciative enquiry’ (e.g. Cooperrider et al., 2000; Watkins & Mohr,
2001). Each of these paradigms of enquiry has different origins, histories and traditions
which have grown out of the varying applications of an action-focused approach to ‘real
world’ research. Action research in education in the UK has grown largely out of a tradition of
curriculum development (Stenhouse, 1975; 1978; Elliott,1998) and latterly been associated
with work in the field of school improvement (Hopkins et al., 1994; Myers, 1996; Halsall,
8
DRAFT ONLY
1998; Joyce et al., 1999).
Action learning meanwhile, has its roots in a tradition of
management development within the private sector, originating in an approach to real world
problem solving in the mining industry (Revans, 1966; 1971). As one of the latest additions
to the action enquiry paradigm, appreciative enquiry, on the other hand, has evolved from
work in the field of organisational change. As a collaborative organisational development
intervention it has been utilised by companies around the world to engage in bold
experiments in organisational design and change management (Whitney, 1998).
Despite their differing starting points, each of these approaches to enquiry is bound together
around a common core characterised by a focus upon collaborative engagement in a
process of action-oriented, evidence-informed improvement and the building of change
management capacity within organisations. In this way, action enquiry in all its forms appears
unified by a dual emphasis upon bringing about improvements in practice and improvements
in understanding simultaneously (McCormick & James, 1983) whether at individual,
organisational or whole system level. As a type of ‘real world enquiry’ it is also commonly
concerned with seeking a potential usefulness in relation to policy and practice (Robson,
1993). In working from a previous identification of the characteristics of teacher research
(Carter & Halsall, 1998) we see commonalities across each of these paradigms of enquiry
which have helped to inform the use of action enquiry processes within our work.

it focuses on professional activity, usually in the workplace itself

its purpose is to clarify aspects of that activity, with a view to bringing about
beneficial change and ultimately, to improve student progress, achievement
and development, this being precisely the purpose of school improvement

it may focus on, again as is the case with school improvement efforts
generally, both teaching and learning at the classroom level, and supporting
organisational conditions and change management capacity (p.72-73)
Within this frame of reference, the adoption of an enquiry-based approach to leadership and
leadership development is seen as a powerful vehicle for building ‘school capacity’ (NCSL,
2002), that is, ‘the collective competency of the school as an entity to bring about change’
(Hopkins, 2001:12). It is also recognised as valuable in providing a medium through which
school improvement efforts can be framed to accommodate a simultaneous emphasis upon
the professional learning of individuals and the development of ‘organisational capacity’. As
Hopkins (2001) suggests, ‘In a wide range of public and private sector organisations there is
now evidence to suggest that leadership is more likely to be effective if it addresses not only
the learning of individuals, but at the same time dimensions of organisational capacity’ (p.12).
Without this dual emphasis, he argues, a school will be unable to ‘transform’ itself or sustain
9
DRAFT ONLY
continuous improvement efforts that result in student attainment. He further suggests that
one of the key organisational features required in building the ‘social capital’ aspect of
capacity is the provision of opportunities for staff to work together collaboratively whilst
engaged in enquiry and problem solving (2001:12). In this way of thinking, the adoption of
an enquiry-based approach to leadership is understood to provide a potentially potent means
of building change management capacity, individual and collective leadership capacity, and
internal, organisational capacity, within a continuous cycle of investigation, action and
improvement (Carter & Ireson, 2003).
The Challenges of Programme Facilitation
The networked context in which both programme-level research and enquiry and practitioner
research are undertaken within the Networked Learning Communities programme is
important to account for. In supporting the use of action enquiry methodologies within the
work of the NLCs and in investigating, at programme level, critical programmatic themes
such as, the facilitation of network development, and learning at the network-to-network
level, it has been necessary for us to develop a networked model of facilitation which
provides us with the means to re-frame our facilitation practice in ways which will build
sustainability for both the networks themselves in the longer term, and for the programme in
the shorter to medium term.
Models and methods of facilitation within the Networked Learning Communities programme
have been explored in a variety of contexts at both programme level and within newly formed
regional teams. This exploration has utilised a variety of enquiry methodologies including the
adoption of an action learning approach (Revans, 1980; McGill & Beaty, 1992) and the use of
an appreciative enquiry framework (Cooperrider et al., 2000; Watkins & Mohr, 2001).
Developing thinking around emergent models and methods of facilitation has also been
captured through a working group process drawing upon perspectives from theory, practice
and policy in providing a framework for re-conceptualising our facilitation practice in light of
the evolving needs of the programme and of the networks (Carter et al., 2003). This work
has been undertaken with the core purpose of informing the development of the network
consultancy function within the NLC programme in operationalising approaches to facilitation
which are responsive and adaptive, appropriately differentiated to developing network needs
and therefore, both evolutionary and innovatory in nature. In addition, this work has focused
upon the increasingly pressing need to ensure that the models and methods of facilitation
utilised within the programme are sustainable in both the medium and long term and have a
constant eye upon the need for nurturing connectivity and networked learning at all levels
within the programme.
10
DRAFT ONLY
The Framing of Facilitation – Towards a Model of Practice
Appreciative enquiry data gathered from the Network Consultancy team as part of a
‘research lens’ focus upon network facilitation required facilitators to frame their lived
experiences of facilitation within the programme from within an appreciative stance. This
enquiry aimed to:
•
develop the positive start made by facilitators and acknowledge the positive
experiences and potential contributions of new starters and others, and to go forward
from this optimistic/ appreciative stance
•
draw together the significant cultural characteristics of our facilitation practice ‘at its
best’ and then preserve and grow them
•
make explicit and positively acknowledge the connections with and influence of, the
public knowledge-base in informing our current thinking and future practice
The outcomes of the ‘discovery’ stage of the enquiry were drawn together utilising two
analytic frameworks.The first was focused upon the identification of the values and principles
underpinning our facilitation in practice. The second, focused upon the identification of the
activities and actions of facilitation exemplified in the narrative accounts given by facilitators
of their work with the networks. The data within these two frameworks were subsequently
grouped around four ‘Dimensions of Facilitation’ - participation, action orientation, personal
practice and relationships (see Appendix 1) and four ‘Domains of Facilitation Activity’ –
developer, networked, enquirer, knowledge generator (see Appendix 2).
Network Consultancy
Development/
facilitation
Networking
Intervener,
Coach
Enquiry
and
Research
Network
Connector
Enquirer,
Analyst,
Interpreter
Reporter,
Artefact
Generator
Knowledge Creation
Figure 3: The Four Domains of Facilitation Activity
11
DRAFT ONLY
Unsurprisingly, considering the stage of network development when the enquiry was
undertaken (February 2003), the main emphasis of activity and confidence appeared to be
within the ‘Developer’, ‘Networker’ and ‘Enquirer’ functions whilst the ‘Knowledge Generation’
function appeared to be least well developed. In framing the values and principles which
underpinned facilitation practice in NLC there was a high level of congruence around the
‘action orientation’ of the facilitation role. There was also a recognition of the significant
influence of ‘personal practice’ and the need for interpretation and adaptation of role to meet
networks’ needs. An emphasis was also placed upon facilitative approaches to nurturing
‘participation’
and
building
and
sustaining
‘relationships’
within
facilitator-network
engagement and interaction.
Although it might be argued that the ‘development’ domain of our activity as facilitators can
be distinctively characterised as being associated with the support of network processes
within the project management, or organisational change management field, amongst others.
It might also be suggested that network issues in this domain of the quadrant can only be
addressed by considering the activity undertaken within the other quadrants first. This, it
might be argued, is the quadrant that will transform plans, ideas and concepts into reality and
brings about a synergy between action undertaken in the other quadrants. In this way of
thinking, facilitation and development lies at the core of the work of the facilitator group – it is
the key catalytic function within our role to make things happen. It represents the optimal
point of our effectiveness when we are able to bring together each of the other quadrants of
activity within a powerful combination for driving forward and supporting both network and
programme level learning.
A Networked Learning
Development and Research Programme
Knowledge
Creation
Networking
Facilitation
our research
activity,
our seminars,
our products
Research and
Enquiry
Figure 4: Reconfiguring the Locus of Facilitation Activity within the Programme
12
DRAFT ONLY
Emergent Models and Methods for Future Practice
In subsequently developing our thinking around the theme of facilitation following this initial
stage of enquiry, we began to explore how these identified ‘dimensions’ of facilitation (the
values and principles underpinning our facilitation practice) and ‘domains’ of facilitation
activity (activities and action of facilitation) might be de-constructed and re-constructed with a
view to the development of a more sustainable model of facilitation practice than the ‘one
facilitator-one network’ model of facilitation currently in operation. Proposals for the
development of models and methods of facilitation practice for the future are currently under
consideration in terms of operationalising new forms of facilitation within a newly established
regional structure and a new programme level project group structure. These proposals,
which are currently at the stage of operational design and development, are rooted in the
idea that a more explicitly ‘networked’ model of facilitation provides us with the means to reframe our facilitation practice in ways which will build sustainability for both the networks
themselves in the longer term, and for the programme in the shorter to medium term.
Current thinking which is informing the development of these new forms of facilitation is that
if we are to achieve effective network-to-network, programme and systemic level learning
and knowledge sharing, then a ‘kaleidoscopic view’ of the kinaesthetics of learning and the
networking of knowledge might be helpful to us in pursuing this aim. This in turn, suggests
the need for a new perspective on our work as facilitators which re-configures our facilitation
activity and its outcomes, within a networked model of knowledge generation and transfer.
This viewpoint is seen to represent a move away from the singular application of a
‘microscopic lens’ in analysing personal practice, or in studying or supporting the work of
networks within a ‘one-on-one’ model of facilitation. It is also seen to be distinctive from the
application of a ‘telescopic lens’, in viewing the work of others (be they other networks, or
other facilitators) ‘from a distance’ as a second consequence of the adoption of a ‘one-onone’ model of facilitation.
What is proposed, in viewing our facilitation practice through a kaleidoscopic lens, is a
reconfiguration of our practice in supporting the networks to achieve a more dynamic,
colourful and kinaesthetic view of their own learning and of the potential of network-tonetwork learning within this, in ways which have the potential to energise, both the process of
networked learning and its outcomes, in connected and powerful ways. We therefore
envisage a networked model of facilitation to look something along the lines indicated below
– where there is a dynamic pattern of connection and layering between our actions in the
four domains of facilitation activity – centred upon the use of a networked model of
facilitation.
13
DRAFT ONLY
N2N regional networking &
knowledge sharing
N2N regional network support &
development
N2N programme groups
N2N facilitator
activity
N2N research
enquiry group
N2N regional
groups
N2N
themed
groups
N2N
programme
products
N2N regional
research &
enquiry
N2N consultant
activity
N2N national network
support & development
N2N development and
enquiry groups
N2N regional knowledge generation
N2N regional products
Figure 5: The kaleidoscopic context for the facilitation of network-to-network learning
Concluding Discussion; Taking a Kaleidoscopic View of Practitioner Research
In summarising the new directions taken in the work of Networked Learning Communities
programme and identifying the key challenges posed in supporting practitioner research in
networked learning contexts - that is, both our own research as practitioners and that of the
NLC participants and their partners in schools - a number of concluding issues are identified
below. In attempting to frame the key challenges currently faced by the NLC programme it is
hoped that a consideration of these key themes will engage others in the current debate
around ‘‘New Directions in Practitioner Research’ (Noffke et al. 2003).

Supporting ‘leadership’ and ‘learning’ communities in addressing their individual and
organisational improvement goals (Harradine, 1996; Carter, 1998) and facilitating the
sharing of practice and the dissemination of lessons learned from collaborative enquiry
across NLC’s six levels of learning, thereby connecting classroom enquiry and teacher
learning and knowledge generation, to school, network and network-to-network contexts
at the system level.
14
DRAFT ONLY

Creating a kaleidoscopic process for knowledge generation and knowledge
sharing thereby ‘networking knowledge’ to inform school improvement and leadership
processes (Jackson, 2002a; Hargreaves, 2001) and the building of a knowledge-base of
innovative practice, whilst acknowledging the context-specific nature of practice and,
therefore, of the knowledge derived from action enquiry, where it is argued that there is
‘no one best way’ (Fullan, 1991; Scheerens, 1992).

Creating a context for, and contributing to, collaborative enquiry involving different
research and practitioner communities (Halsall et al., 1998; Myers, 1996) e.g.
Universities; LEAs; schools; national bodies etc., with the aim of supporting a schoolbased culture of research, and bridging the gap between ‘the castle of the school’ and
‘the castle of the academy’ (Somekh, 1994) and including the development of inclusive
collaborations, where all NLC participants, including pupils, can contribute to networked
learning enquiry.

Giving status to practitioner ‘voice’ in research and policy contexts (Hargreaves &
Evans, 1997; Dadds, 1996; Groundwater-Smith, 1996) both through the involvement of
practitioners in the NLC programme’s development and research activity and through
their involvement in learning exchange and knowledge sharing processes, dissemination,
publication and other policy informing activity. 2
Notes
1. Adapted from ‘Networked Learning Communities: Principles’ (NSCL, 2002)
2. Developed from ‘Lessons for Leadership - The Role of Action Research’ (Carter, K. & Barrett, H. 2001)
15
DRAFT ONLY
References
Barth, R. (1988) School: a community of leaders in A. Lieberman (ed.) Building A Professional Culture
in Schools. Teachers College Press: New York
Carter, K. (1998) ‘Action research in Partnership: establishing teachers as key players on the school
effectiveness stage’, Educational Action Research, Volume 6, No. 2, pp.275-303
Carter, K. & Halsall, R. (1998) Teacher Research for School Improvement, Chapter 4 in R. Halsall
(Ed.) Teacher Research and School Improvement: opening doors from the inside, Buckingham: Open
University Press, pp.71-90
Carter, K. & Barrett, H. (2001) ‘Lessons for Leadership; the role of action research’, Paper presented
to the 25th Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) International Conference, Windermere,
November
Carter, K. & Ireson, J. (2003) ‘Energising Enquiry; Building capacity through enquiry-based leadership
practice’, Paper presented to the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement,
Sydney, Australia, January
Carter, K., Bond, K., Franey, T., Hill, K. & Martin, N. (2003) ‘From Microscopes and Telescopes…to
Kaleidoscopes: Reframing facilitation for sustainability in Networked Learning Communities’, Internal
Working Paper, NCSL, April
Cooperrider, D. L., Sorensen, P. F., Whitney, D. & Yaeger, T. F. (2000) Appreciative Inquiry:
Rethinking Human Organization Toward a Positive Theory of Change. Champaign, Illinois: Stipes
Publishing
Day, C., Hall, C. & Whitaker, P. (1998) Developing Leadership in Primary Schools. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing
Dadds, M. (1996) ‘Supporting practitioner research: a challenge’, paper presented to the Supporting
Practitioner Research Conference, University of Cambridge Institute of Education, July
DEMOS (2002) Learning the Lessons: What Have We Learnt From Previous Networking Initiatives?,
Executive Summary, Cranfield: DEMOS/NCSL
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes & Philadelphia: Open
University Press
Elliott, J. (1998) The Curriculum Experiment. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press
Fullan, M. G. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Groundwater-Smith, S. (1996) ‘Putting teacher professional judgement to work’, paper presented to
the Supporting Practitioner Research Conference, University of Cambridge Institute of Education, July
Halsall, R. (Ed.) (1998) Teacher Research and School Improvement. Buckingham & Philadelphia:
Open University Press
Hargreaves, A. and Evans, R. (1997) Beyond Educational Reform Bringing Teachers Back In.
Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press
Hargreaves, D. (2001) A Capital Theory of School Effectiveness and Improvement, British
Educational Research Journals, Vol. 27, No.4., pp.487-503
Harradine, J. (1996) The Role of Research in the Work of the National Schools Network. Ryde,
NSW, Australia: National Schools Network
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London:
Cassell
Hopkins, D. (2001) Schooling for Tomorrow: Innovation and Networks. OECD/CERI
16
DRAFT ONLY
Hopkins, D. (2001a) ‘Think Tank’ Report to Governing Council. Nottingham: National College for
School Leadership
Hopkins, D. (2002) Speech to the NCSL Leading Transformation Network Conference, Queen
Elizabeth Conference Centre, London, July
Hopkins, D. & Jackson, D. (2002) Building Capacity for Leading and Learning (in press)
Jackson, D. & Southworth, G. (2001) ‘Braiding Knowledge for Impact: Metaphor and reality in
NCSL’s research strategy’, Paper presented to the UCEA Annual Conference, Cincinnati, November
Jackson, D. (2002) ‘Mining Old Gold’, Managing Schools Today, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp.46-48
Jackson, D. (2002a) ‘The Creation of Knowledge Networks; Collaborative Enquiry for School and
System Improvement’, Paper presented to the CERI/OECD/DfES/QCA ESRC Forum “Knowledge
Management in Education and Learning”, 18-19th March 2002, Oxford.
Jackson, D. (2002b) ‘Networks and Networked Learning’. Paper presented to the Annual SCETT
Conference ‘Professional Learning Communities’, 4th-5th October, Stoke Rochford, Grantham, UK
Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. & Hopkins, D. (1999) The New Structure Of School Improvement: inquiring
schools and achieving students. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press
Lewin, K. (1946) ‘Action Research and Minority Problems’, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 2, pp.34-36
Lieberman, A. (1999) ‘Networks’, Journal of staff Development, Vol. 20, No.2, Summer
McCormick, R. & James, M. (l983) Curriculum Evaluation in Schools. Beckanham: Croom Helm
McGill, I. & Beaty, L. (1992) Action Learning A Practitioner's Guide. London: KoganPage
Myers, K. (1996) School Improvement in Practice: Schools Make a Difference Project. London:
Falmer Press
NCSL (2001) Research and School Improvement Group Internal Working Paper. Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership
NCSL (2001a) The Leadership Development Framework. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership
NCSL (2002) Networked Learning Communities: Principles. Cranfield: National College for School
Leadership
NCSL (2003) Networked Learning Communities Briefing Paper. Cranfield: National College for School
Leadership
Noffke, S., Carter, K., Elliott J., Meyer J., Whitehead, J. (2003) ‘New Directions for Practitioner
Research’, Inaugural Symposium of the BERA Practitioner Research SIG, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, September
Revans, R. W. (1966) The Theory of Practice in Management. London: Macdonald
Revans, R. W. (1971) Developing Effective Managers: a new approach to business education.
London: Longmans
Revans, R. W. (1980) Action Learning: New Techniques For Action Learning. London: Blond & Briggs
Robson, C. (l993) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell
Scheerens, J. (1992) Effective Schooling: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Cassell
Somekh, B. (1994) ‘Inhabiting each other’s castles: towards knowledge and mutual growth through
collaboration’, Educational Action Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.357-380
17
DRAFT ONLY
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann
Stenhouse, L. (1978) Applying Research to Education. Reprinted in J. Rudduck and D. Hopkins
(eds.) (1985) Research as a Basis for Teaching. London: Heinemann
Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996) Changing Our Schools. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University
Press
Watkins, J. M. & Mohr, B. J. (2001) Appreciative Inquiry - Change at the Speed of Imagination. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer
Whitney, D. (1998) ‘Let’s change the subject and change our organization: an appreciative inquiry
approach to organization change’, Career Development International, Vol.3, No.7, pp.314-319
BERA/Sept/03
18