School-University Partnership for Peer Communities of Learners (SUP4PCL)

Case Study: Ain Shams University University of Limerick The Development of a Professional Learning Community within Ain Shams University, Cairo

By Orla McCormack, Deborah Tannehill, Ciaran O’Gallchoir and Annmarie Young, University of Limerick, Ireland.

With Contributions from Rasha Kamal and Hany Barsoum, Ain Shams University, Cairo.

Edited by the peer review committee: The American University in Cairo and The University of Leicester The Project Number: 573660-EPP-1-2016-EG-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP The Project Title: School-University Partnership for Peer Communities of Learners (SUP4PCL)

The Project Website: SUP4PCL.aucegypt.edu

Disclaimer This work has originated through the School-University Partnership for Peer Communities of Learners (SUP4PCL) Project that was initiated by the Middle East Institute for Higher Education (MEIHE) at the American University in Cairo in partnership with Ain Shams, Alexandria, Helwan, Leicester, Limerick, Martin Luther and Northampton universities. The project is an Erasmus + initiative funded and supported by the European Commission. This and any communication or publication related to the action, made by the beneficiaries jointly or individually in any form and using any means, shall indicate that it reflects only the author’s view and that the Agency and the Commission are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Table of Contents Description of Acronyms 5 List of Tables 6 List of Figures 7 List of Appendices 8 Preface 9 Section One: Introduction 10 Section Two: Theoretical Framework 10 Eight Key Features of Effective Professional Development for Peer Communities of Learners 10 Section Three: Methodology 13 Research Questions 13 Qualitative Research 13 Case study research 13 Research methods 14 Ethical Considerations 15 Data Collection 15 Data Analysis 18 Validity 18 Limitations 19 Section Four: Results 21 Part one: The Context 21 Part two: Deductive Data Analysis 22 Part three: Inductive Data Analysis 38 Meanings attached to the concept of PCL 38 Culture as a constraining factor 39 The varying journey of PCLs: ‘Its messy’ 41 The use of supportive technology in developing a PCL 44 Section Five: Discussion 45 References 49 Bibliography 53 Appendices 54

4 Description of Acronyms

AUC The American University in Cairo

ANSU Ain Shams University

CoP Communities of Practice

CPD Continuous Professional Development

UL University of Limerick

5 List of Tables

Table 1. Pseudonyms assigned to interviewees in phase 2 15

Table 2. An overview of the three phases of data collection 17

6 List of Figures

Figure 1. Stages of development of a PCL 12

Figure 2. An example of a timeline task used in the case study 15

Figure 3. Description of phases of data collection 16

Figure 4. ANSU mentors (group 1) timeline on the development of their PCL 42

Figure 5. ANSU mentors (group 2 and 3) timeline on the development of their PCL 43

Figure 6. ANSU mentors (group 4) timeline on the development of their PCL 43

Figure 7. Timeline on the development of the ANSU-UL PCL 44

7 List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Phase 1: Semi-structured interview with ANSU management 54

Appendix 2. Phase 2: Semi-structured interviews questions with mentors 55

Appendix 3. Phase 3: Prompts for focus group with mentors (questions asked in terms of 56 school and faculty PCL.

Appendix 4. Focus group with UL team members 57

8 Preface The partnership is the result of an Erasmus+ project that was awarded to the Middle East Institute for Higher Education at the Graduate School of Education in the American University in Cairo entitled School-University Partnership for Peer Communities of Learners (SUP4PCL) in November 2016. The partnership was created within a context where Egypt has shown a keen need for reform at the school and university levels and where Faculties of Education have acquired the reputation of operating in an ivory tower divorced from the practical field of school improvement. A continued debate has called for the abolition of faculties and schools of education at the undergraduate level and the relegation of their work to the graduate level; hence, the eternal struggle between sequential and concurrent teacher education programs. The partnership was therefore viewed by Egypt’s Supreme Council of Universities and Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research as a welcome step in the direction of creating cost-effective means of stimulating a reform environment. For several decades, the international reform community has recognized the importance of school-university partnerships and the creation of Professional Development Schools (PDS) in offering an effective method of creating collaboration, continuous professional development, research, and pedagogical innovation. The proponents of this approach have claimed that it can simultaneously reform school practices and teacher education programs. It is the intention of the SUP4PCL consortium in Egypt to introduce such an approach with the support and creation of Peer Communities of learners (PCLs) at the university, school, and cross-cultural levels. Due to some bureaucratic delays, it is only in late February of 2017 that the partnership was enacted with the first Kick-off meeting of the project. During this initial first phase, partnership teams were being constructed within the eight institutions of the consortium; Ain Shams University ANSU, Helwan University HU, Alexandria University AU (from Egypt), University of Limerick UL, (from Ireland) Martin Luther University (from Germany), University of Northampton UON, University of Leicester ULEIC (from UK), and the American University in Cairo AUC, coordinating the consortium from Egypt. Moreover, the various institutions with very diverse cultural and political backgrounds were beginning to know each other. The early stages of consolidating this layer of the partnership were animated with meetings and much mobility to learn about each other in live natural environments. During this preparatory preliminary phase, another layer was added to the partnership namely that between Egyptian Faculties of Education and Professional Development Schools (PDSs). The first step in that direction was a signed Memorandum of Understanding MOU between the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and the Ministry of Education and Technical Education. Under this protocol, three faculties were to partner with a total of 15 public governmental schools at a ratio of 5 to each faculty later to expand to a total of 45 schools at a ratio of 15 schools per faculty. The MOU was followed by signed letters of agreement with the Ministry of Education local directorates. After some months, more closeness was established between the partners through exchange visits, activities, communication and meetings in the summer of 2018. Halfway through the project, another dimension to the partnership was added, namely a twinning process was introduced with the following arrangement: AUC twinning with ULEIC for quality assurance and monitoring purposes, AU with UON twining for capacity development and the write up of case studies, similarly for the same purposes HU twinned with MLU and ANSU with UL. Finally, in 2019 yet another dimension was added to the partnership with the clustering of PDSs thus allowing for these to expand to 45 with a ratio of 15 per each Faculty of Education (FOE). The various case studies of this project will cover all the layers and dimensions of the enhanced and expanding partnership. All the participants in the expanding partnership/consortium reached consensus on a research framework with set questions shaping the work of each of the case studies. Together, the various case studies constitute a level of triangulation that supports and assures the integrity of interpretation especially that the collection of data was done at different points in time by different research teams in similar settings. The total data generated from this project has the potential of being utilized for grounded theory and to further refine concepts and comparative approaches to school-university partnerships, and Peer Communities of Learners PCL.

Malak Zaalouk

9 Section One: Introduction powerful learning opportunities for teachers. She suggests that “in conventional forms of in-service and This report provides an overview of the development staff development, outside experts do most of the talking of a Peer Community of Learners (PCL) within and teachers most of the listening. In new approaches to Ain Shams University (ANSU), Cairo and between professional development, teachers do the talking, thinking, ANSU and their European partner, the University of and learning. Talk is the central vehicle for sharing and Limerick (UL), Ireland. The focus of this case study analysing ideas, values, and practices. Through critical and is mainly on the development and impact of the PCL thoughtful conversations, teachers develop and find ways within the Faculty of Education in ANSU. However, to study teaching and learning” (p. 1043). This supports the data pertaining to schools and to the ANSU-UL Hargreaves and Fullan’s (2012) notion that professional relationship supports us in developing a more complete development be placed in the hands of teachers themselves understanding of the Faculty PCL. and acknowledges that teachers are capable of setting their own professional goals, determining how to reach them, The theoretical frame underpinning the case study, and working collectively to achieve them, thus taking that of PCL, is briefly outlined at the beginning by responsibility for their own professional development describing the eight key features of effective PCLs (as cited in Patton, Parker, & Pratt, 2013). In recent years (Patton & Parker, 2017). These eight principles innovative CPD initiatives that are on-going, sustained, informed stage one of the data analysis for the case and focused on the needs and interests of teachers have study. The methodology for the case study is described been proposed with exciting learning taking place through and followed by an outline of the key findings interactive professional communities of learners (PCL) emerging from the case study. The three research and/or communities of practice (CoP). The core features questions informing this case study, as outlined in the identified in the research literature to inform effective methodology, are discussed within the final section of professional development (Patton & Parker, 2017) and the report and the key learning from the case study are which have guided our collective focus on professional identified. communities of learners are as follows: Section Two: Theoretical Framework 1. Based on Teachers Needs and Interests Within this section, the theoretical framework for the • Teacher’s actively involved in decisions about study, that of Peer Communities of Learners, is briefly what they will learn, how they will learn and how outlined and the core principles underpinning PCLs are they will use what they learn briefly explained. These eight core principles informed • Teachers gain increased ownership of and stage one of (deductive) data analysis and are revisited commitment to CPD in section four (results) and section five (discussion). • Focuses on teacher’s real work in schools and Eight Key Features of Effective Professional addresses the unique context of their school Development for Peer Communities of Learners • Acknowledges teachers' prior knowledge and Internationally, in-service provision, commonly referred experience to as continuing professional development (CPD), has received much attention as a key strategy for improving the 2. View Learning as a Social Process quality of teaching practices and the learning of students (OECD, 2014). Despite this attention and increased • Building strong working relationships among funding to support a change in the focus and delivery teachers of CPD, there are persistent concerns about the quality of CPD provision (Guskey, 2002). The importance of • Forming personal relationships, enhancing trust CPD cannot be understated. As Feiman-Nemser (2010) and strong collegial relationships, characterised noted, if we want schools to produce more powerful by an ability to work together toward shared learning on the part of students, we have to offer more collaborative learning and joint practice that

10 encourages interactive feedback and discussion rather than tell

3. Include Collaborative Opportunities • The facilitator does not impose vision: listen and hear, gently push and pull • Involves teachers of similar subjects and across subject areas • Uses a variety of pedagogical strategies

• Based on camaraderie and respect 8. Focus on Improving Learning Outcomes for students • Reflect on failures, successes, and practices • PD within PCL that is intensive and includes • Risk-taking is supported the application of knowledge to teachers’ planning and instruction is most likely to • Engage in challenging discussion influence teachers’ practices, and in turn, positively affect student achievement 4. Is On-Going and Sustained Peer communities of learners do not just happen, they • Professional engagement extended over a grow and evolve through nurturing of the key features of period of time effective professional development. It should be noted that these key features do not need to stand alone, nor • On-site follow-up must they be sequential; rather, these features develop independently and over time, they work together as a • Bringing experiences back to the group for community to develop strength and identity. Wenger discussion (1998) suggests that learning communities begin as 5. Treat Teachers as Active Learners a group with similar needs that go through a natural cycle of developing progressively into their mature • Provides “hands-on” work that builds teacher and productive state, and then continue to evolve until knowledge of academic content and how to teach the communities are no longer relevant or reinvent it to their students themselves for other needs, as reflected in figure 1.

• Uses action research, observing and receiving A developmental model provides a sequence of stages feedback, group discussion, presenting and that reflects the typical progression of a community, publishing work one that can be experienced in a variety of ways (Wenger, 1998). Some communities go through one stage or another relatively quickly while others 6. Enhance Teachers Pedagogical Skills and Content spend considerably more time in this same stage. One Knowledge community may skip a stage and be forced to revert back • Helps teacher master content, hone teaching and deal with earlier issues while another community skills, evaluate their own and their students’ might combine two stages dealing with all the issues performance, and address changes needed in at the same time. Recognising these stages through teaching and learning in their schools which a community will pass and the associated issues they will encounter and must grapple with is critical; • Focuses on meaningful learning experiences understanding provides the basis for reflection and related to teachers’ daily work action necessary for community development.

7. Facilitated with Care

• Thoughtful and intentional facilitation

• The facilitator must guide rather than direct, question rather than show the way, and listen

11 Figure 1. Stages of Development of a PCL (Wenger, 1998, p.3)

12 Section Three: Methodology is central to the research process. Limitations of qualitative research are explored later in this section. Within this section, the research questions, research paradigm, design, data collection, and analysis are Case study research outlined. The section concludes by identifying the Case study research is increasingly popular amongst limitations of the study. qualitative researchers (Hyett , Kenny, & Dickson- Swift, 2014). Case study research supports the Research Questions researcher to ‘go deep’ (Corcoran, Walker, & Wals, The following research questions guide this study: 2004), capturing the complexity of the phenomenon being studied (Stake, 1995). Such an approach enables 1. How does the school-university partnership the researcher to reveal the multiple factors that enhance the development of PCLs at the interact to produce the unique aspects of the case (Yin, university level? 1989) and hence provides a holistic understanding of 2. How has the PCL impacted on the the entire case (Stake, 1995; 1998). transformation of professional learning Case study research explores the why and how regarding the practice at the university level? specific case under investigation (Yin, 2002) and requires 3. What are some of the tensions between the researcher to thoroughly consider all aspects of the beliefs/values and practice? case including, for example, the historical background and the physical setting (Stake, 1998). Qualitative Research The case is the object to be studied. This can be Qualitative research explores people’s life histories singular or multiple. According to Stake (1995), a case and perspectives (Silverman, 2000) and seeks to is a bound system. Similarly, Merriam (1998) identifies understand their world and their perception of that world a case as “a unit that has boundaries” (p.27). The case (Parahoo, 1997). Emphasis is placed on participants’ can be “a programme, an institution, a process, a voices, experiences, and opinions rather than making person or a social unit” (ibid, p.xiii). In relation to this judgments about how valid such feelings are (Thorne, study, the case is the members of the Erasmus+ team 2000). As such, the qualitative researcher is interested in the Faculty of Education, Ain Shams University, in ‘what individual actors say and do’ (Hitchcock & Cairo, Egypt and the University of Limerick, Limerick, Hughes, 1995, p.161) and they ‘seek insight rather than Ireland. statistical analysis’ (Bell, 1993, p.8). Case studies do not have a codified design (Yin, Qualitative research is conducted in a natural setting 2002) and such approaches offer the researcher and therefore enables researchers to learn from methodological flexibility. Various epistemological and the first-hand experience about the world they are ontological positions can be supported through a case investigating (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The research study approach, as can numerous forms of research is conducted from ‘the inside’ (Angrosino, 2008, p.viii) design and data collection (Hyett et al., 2014, p.10). as Trochim (2006) argues the ‘best way to understand While various approaches can be taken, it is imperative any phenomenon is to view it in context’ (p.5). Through that a case study draws on multiple sources of evidence in-depth observation, involvement and participation (Yin, 1989) and ‘a palette of methods’ (Stake, 1995, within a specific site, qualitative researchers can p.xi-xii). Doing so ensures that the complexity of develop ‘rich insight’ (Angrosino, 2008, p.viii) and the case is captured in its entirety. While Yin (1989) ‘context-bound information’ (Creswell, 1994). focuses on qualitative and quantitative case studies, Stake (1995) and Merrian (1998) focus exclusively on Qualitative research, by its nature, is subjective qualitative case studies. These three studies are viewed (Creswell, 2005) and the researcher is an important as the seminal texts on case study research. part of the research process (Angrosino, 2008). The qualitative researcher listens, observes, reflects and analyses the data (Silverman, 2000) and therefore

13 Research methods Observations can be structured or unstructured in As stated above, case studies support a variety of manner. An unstructured approach to observation approaches to data collection (Corcoran et al., 2004). supports the development of, rather than the test of, However, Gill, Stewart, Treasure, and Chadwick a hypothesis and is therefore in line with qualitative (2008) argue that focus groups and interviews are research (Cohen et al., 2000). Reflective diaries, a amongst the most common approaches to data common approach to recording observations, can collection within qualitative case studies. An interview support researchers to capture an experience/event, is basically ‘a two-person conversation initiated by explore their feelings and make sense of what they the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining know (Boud, 2001). Keeping a reflective diary during research relevant information’ (Cohen, Manion, & the research process can capture the messiness of this Morrison, 2000, p.271). Interviews take the shape process and make it more visible to the researcher and of a conversation between the researcher and their eventually the reader (Ortlipp, 2008). subject and allow the interviewee to explain situations Timelines, as a research methodology, help participants from their own point of view (Cohen et al., 2000, to reflect on past experiences and link it to the present p.267). Semi-structured interviews, while having set and the future (Leung, 2010). During the process, questions to guide the process, allow the interviewer participants reflect on and track past experiences and interviewee to diverge from these questions in and capture these in visual form. Timelines support order to pursue any unexpected emerging issue (Gill the reflective process by supporting participants to et al., 2008). Focus groups also support the above organise events in chronological order, to evaluate and are useful in generating a rich understanding of their experiences and to ‘give voice, in a creative participants’ experiences and beliefs (Gill et al., 2008). way’ to these experiences (Jackson, 2013, p.428). However, focus groups work best when participants Timelines have been shown to support reflection on are comfortable talking openly amongst each other. group projects and learning (Kristianset et al., 2012). Who participates and the number of participants is an Such an approach is sensitive to cultural differences important consideration when designing a focus group. and background as ‘the approach allows the individual Observations allow the researcher to take field notes to construct a sense of self from their own stories of on the behaviour and activities of individuals within the past’ (Jackson, 2013, p. 418). Timelines enable the case (Creswell, 2009). Such observations support participants to delineate the line that reflects their the researcher in understanding complex situations subjective perception regarding an event, in this case, ‘in situ’ (Cohen et al., 2000, p.305) much more than the development of a PCL in the ANSU Faculty of they would discover from directly questioning the Education and in their assigned school. Following participants. the development of the timeline, probing questions can be used to explore the underlying meaning of the Observations can be conducted in a participatory timelines (Leung, 2010). or non-participatory manner. Within participant observation, the researcher is part of the group and Within this case study, timelines were conducted in engages in activities with group members. However, phase 2. During a visit from UL to ANSU, school the researcher has a dual role (DeLyser, 2001) and groups were asked to visually track their perceptions as they are also there in an observing capacity, they of how the PCL developed in both their schools and must at times ‘mentally stand back and notice things, in ANSU. The X-axis reflected time (year 1-3 of the and note them down’ (O’Reilly, 2005, p.97). The project), while the y-axis reflected participants’ views researcher must, at one time, be both ‘unobtrusive and regarding the development of the PCLs. Once the yet ask questions…join in and yet remain an outsider’ timelines were complete, participants talked through (O’Reilly, 2005, p.97). The participatory observation their timelines while members of the UL team asked supports the researcher in having intimacy, which probing questions. An example of a timeline, completed supports both the telling and judging of truth (Bonner by the UL team, is presented below as an example and & Tolhurst, 2002). Such a role enables the researcher to is revisited again in the results: notice events that can be taken for granted.

14 Table 1 Pseudonyms assigned to interviewees in phase 2

Interview Number Pseudonym

1 Aleya

2 Jamila

Figure 2. An example of a timeline task used in the case study 3 Berenike Ethical Considerations Ethical approval was sought and granted through the 4 Husani Ethics Committee in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick. All ethical procedures were adhered to during the research process. 5 Sara Participation was voluntary and consent was sought prior to conducting and recording the interview/focus 6 Masud group. The only person to have access to the interview recording was the person who conducted the interview, 7 Mamdouh who took responsibility for transcribing it. Participants were sent their interview/focus group transcript for approval prior to sharing with other members of the 8 Dalah research team (for data analysis purposes). At this stage, participants were free to remove or alter any 9 Safaa aspect of the interview they wished. Approval was not granted for use of two interviews, which were removed from the data analysis process. Data Collection Data collection occurred in three main phases, as Every attempt was made to ensure the anonymity of outlined in figure 3. The table 2 outlines each phase the participants. No one was named in the transcript in more depth and provides details on the research and any identifiable information was removed prior method used. The purpose/focus of each aspect of the to sharing with the larger research team. Pseudonyms research and a description of the participants. were provided for each interviewee in phase 2 of the study (please see table 1). Where a participant required a translator, the participant selected a person they felt comfortable with. Observations were conducted in line with ethical procedures. Participants were aware that the researchers were observing events. When writing the reflective diaries, the researchers were again cautious about protecting the anonymity of the participants.

15 Figure 3.Description of phases of data collection

16 1

Table 2 An overview of the three phases of data collection Phase Method Purpose Participants

Focus group Reflecting on our current and changing ANSU school mentors and UL understanding of the project and PCLs team (n= 1)

Focus group Exploring the views, understanding, and ANSU and UL management PHASE 1 experiences of the ANSU/UL management team team (n=1) (April-October towards the project and PCL 2018)

Reflective diaries Record personal thoughts and impressions Two members of the UL team during visits by UL team to ANSU visiting ANSU (n=2)

Interviews Exploring the development of the PCL within ANSU management team and ANSU and schools school mentors/team (n=9)

Reflective To map out the development of the PCL within School mentors and team, UL timelines and ANSU and schools1 and between UL-ANSU team (n=5) related discussion PHASE 2 (December Focus group Exploring the understanding and experiences of Practicum students and 2018) practicum students/supervisor teachers towards supervising teachers (n=1) the project and PCL

Reflective diaries Record personal thoughts and impressions Two members of UL team during visits by UL team to ANSU visiting ANSU (n=2)

Focus groups Explore development in understanding and ANSU school mentors (n=2) progress of PCL

PHASE 3 Focus group Reflection on the development of a PCL within UL team (n=1) (March - July the University of Limerick team and between 2019) UL and ANSU

Reflective diaries Record personal thoughts and impressions Two members of UL team during visits by UL team to ANSU visiting ANSU (n=2)

As can be seen above, in total 6 focus groups and 9 interviews were conducted as part of this case study. In addition to this, a reflective timeline activity and related discussion were conducted with five groups from ANSU/UL and 6 reflective diaries were kept.

1 Each school group (n=4) were provided with a blank piece of paper and pens and asked to map the development of the PCL in the school and FoE (using different colours). Groups were asked to identify key points in this timeline. Each group then explained their timeline to the researcher and were probed regarding different aspects of their description

17 Data Analysis Secondly, an inductive approach to data analysis was A hybrid approach of deductive and inductive data conducted. An inductive approach to data analysis analysis was adopted in this case study. Such an is ‘bottom-up, using the participants’ views to build approach is supported by Yin (2009), who argues broader themes’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p.23). that case studies allow for confirmatory (deductive) Thematic analysis was used to analyse the remaining and explanatory (inductive) findings. A deductive data. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying and theory-driven approach was initially applied, using analysing patterns of meaning in a data set (Bruan & the eight principles underpinning effective PCLs, as Clarke, 2006) and involves ‘consolidating, reducing, outlined above. This was followed by a ‘data-driven’ and interpreting what people have said and what the inductive approach that enabled any additional themes researcher has seen and read – it is the process of to emerge. Such an approach complemented the making meaning’ (Merriam, 1998, p.178). research questions by allowing the core aspects of PCL The researchers followed the stages of thematic to be central to the process of deductive data analysis analysis as outlined by Braun et al. (2006). Four while allowing for unexpected themes and learning to members of the team, engaging in ‘careful reading emerge from the inductive data analysis (Fereday & and re-reading’ (Rice & Ezzy, 1999, p.258), coded Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Joffe (2011) suggests that such the remaining data. Coding is an important step in an approach to data analysis is used in ‘high-quality qualitative data analysis. The coding was initially done qualitative work’ (p.210). individually. Four members of the team then meet A deductive approach to data analysis ‘works from the to discuss the codes and potential emerging themes. top-down, from theory to hypothesis, to data, to add Following these discussions, four themes were agreed to or contradict the theory’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, upon. For example, cultural issues emerged as codes 2007, p.23). Four members of the team were involved in a number of different areas. As a result, this was in this stage of data analysis. Each member read the identified as a theme. interview, focus group and reflective diary transcripts, The researchers revisited the data to ensure each of took two principles each, and coded all relevant data these four themes were sufficiently supported by the accordingly. For example, when an interviewee spoke data and to ensure that no new data was emerging. Once about working collaboratively with a colleague, this was the researchers were satisfied that ‘data saturation’ coded as ‘3’ (‘includes collaborative opportunities’). (Fusch & Ness, 2015) had occurred, they began writing This process was repeated until all relevant data was up the results ensuring that each theme was supported coded into its respective principles. Data under each with sufficient evidence. principle was then coded into its relevant subthemes2, as outlined in section three above. For example, data Validity relating to ‘include collaborative opportunities’, was Validity questions whether you ‘are observing, sub-themed into five sections: ‘involves teachers identifying, or measuring what you say you are’ of similar subjects and across subject areas’, based (Mason, 2006, p.24). Validity indicates that an on camaraderie and respect’, ‘reflects on failures, instrument studies what it claims to study and that successes and practices’, ‘risk-taking is supported’ and the results and theories produced are true. According ‘engage in challenging discussion.ʼ to Sapsford and Jupp (1996), validity asks ‘whether Once this process was complete, two members of the the evidence which the research offers can bear the team read the coded data and once they were satisfied weight of the interpretation that is put on it’ (p.1). that each principle had sufficient data to support the Furthermore, it requires the researcher to question, why claims being made, they wrote up the results under the should I believe the results and conclusions presented? 8 principles. (Wallace & Wray, 2006, p.28). In order to show this, the researcher needs to portray and prove the validity of the data and the conclusions drawn. 2 The final presentation of results is under the 8 themes. Sub- themes are not included but were used initially during the data analysis stage to make sense of the data.

18 The validity of the current study was supported in Limitations five main ways. Firstly, all instruments were piloted Three main limitations were identified in the current in advance of use (Cohen et al., 2000). Secondly, all study. Firstly, due to the qualitative nature of the study, interview and focus group transcripts were member- the ability to replicate and generalise the research checked by participants prior to inclusion in the data findings are limited. As qualitative studies are ‘so analysis process. Thirdly, as many people as possible personal to the researcher there is no guarantee that were included in each phase of the research to ensure a different researcher would not come to radically a variety of perspectives were represented. Doing this different conclusions’ (Mays & Pope, 1995, p.109). is viewed as a ‘magic bullet that kills off all threats to However, the use of multiple researchers and research validity’ (Cronbach, 1981, p.304). methods helps to alleviate this to some extent.

Additionally, the researchers attempted to provide as As this case study is based on one site, the findings much detail and information to the reader regarding the may not reflect the general population. The research data collection process and analysis. Hyett et al. (2014) findings presented in this case study may be unique argue that researchers demonstrate rigour in the study to the people involved (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, by providing a sufficient description of methodological 2004, p.20). The nature of case study data results foundations. Similarly, Seale (1999) believes that in contextually based ‘situated accounts, tied to a validity is supported by showing the reader ‘as much as particular context or interaction’ (Sim, 1998, p.349). possible of the procedures that have led to a particular What may be representative of one ‘specific social set of conclusions’ (p.158). This related to, as stated situation’ (ibid) may not be true of others. As a result, above, a description of methodological procedures but it can be difficult to generalise the findings to a wider also relates to the presentation of the results. Ensuring population. However, the intent of this case study sufficient evidence is provided to support the claims is to provide depth and understanding regarding a being made can convince the reader that ‘the authors’ phenomenon, rather than to achieve generalisability. conclusions make sense’ (Merriam, 1998, p.199). Secondly, the UL team, who led the data collection Finally, methodological and investigator triangulation process, visited ANSU on six occasions during the supports the validity of the research findings. life of the project, usually for about 3-4 days at a time. Triangulation, according to Denzin (1970, p.310), is the These visits typically involved a workshop of some use of a number of observers, theoretical perspectives, sort, which brought mentors away from their normal sources of data, and methodologies. Triangulation is routine and working day. It was during these times used to ‘check the integrity of or extend, inferences that observations were conducted. Certain events and are drawn from the data’ (Richie, 2003, p.43). It adds cultural norms that occurred during the typical working ‘breadth or depth’ to research analysis (N. Fielding day may have been missed as a result. Also, events and & J. Fielding, 1986). Triangulation helps increase interactions that occurred between the UL visits, may the validity of the research by helping to remove bias not have been captured. and identify errors or irregularities in the findings (Anderson & Arsenault, 1999, p.131). Through the Finally, interviewers and interviewees had different use of methodological and investigator triangulation, first languages. As the UL team took the lead in the researcher can question whether they are forming a data collection, some interviewees, who spoke complete description of the case and are drawing valid Arabic, required a translator. As stated above, conclusions. According to Smith and Biley (1997), these interviewees selected a colleague they were if each method produces the same results, then the comfortable with (usually another member of their truth-value of the data is increased. This is particularly school team) to translate the interview for them. This important in relation to qualitative work wherein resulted in a significant amount of interview time being triangulation is a major means of validating the data spent translating the conversation between English- (Seale, 1999). Arabic and Arabic-English. This may have resulted in less time being available to probe or go in-depth on core parts of the interview. Similarly, conversations

19 amongst the ANSU group could revert, at times, to settings, limiting the ability of the UL team members Arabic. This was particularly true during some social to fully observe verbal interactions.

20 Section Four: Results himself! Without the help of his colleagues. But the project means to change this mentality” (Husani, Phase The results are presented in three main parts. Firstly, 2, 5th December, 2018). as the context is important (Cornbleth, 1992), a description of the two sites is provided. The findings The same was true of the Faculty of Education from the deductive stage of data analysis are then in ANSU, with interviewees suggesting that ‘the presented in relation to the eight characteristics of culture within our department, makes individual not PCLs outlined earlier in the report (Patton & Parker, collaborative. This idea of teamwork in research is th 2017). This is followed by findings from the inductive absent’ (Focus Group 1, Phase 3, 13 March, 2019). A stage of data analysis. full teaching load as well as promotion policies, which placed greater emphasis on single rather than co- Part one: The Context authored papers and research projects, supported this Ain Shams University (ANSU) includes 15 faculties environment. For example, participants explained how and 2 high institutes. It includes more than 200,000 ‘We have many different courses. I teach 5 courses. I students, 14,000 staff members, 4,000 assistant staff and have 36 hours per week for teaching. We have no time’ th more than 100 centres and special units. The university (Focus Group 1, Phase 3, 13 March, 2019) and ‘‘when has activated resources and enriched the experiences of we try to make collaborative research, we take a lower th students. ANSU is a leading university in innovation, credit” (Focus Group 1, Phase 3, 13 March, 2019) pedagogy, and technology. It has an international Peer observation and shared reflective practice were record of five stars in teaching and mobility according not typically engaged in within this context prior to to QS Ranking. Faculty of Education FOE is the engaging in the project. Engaging in such practices oldest Faculty of pedagogy in Egypt (EG). It was first was perceived as being ‘a bit sensitive’ and something established in 1880 under the name of the high school people ‘did not want to do. They did not feel comfortable for teachers. In 1929 the Higher Institute of Education with it’ (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). It was established and in 1941 a Department for Higher was into this context that the ANSU mentors began to Studies was established for the purpose of certifying attempt to develop PCLs amongst themselves, between Master Degree candidates in cooperation with Faculty themselves and teachers and between themselves and of Arts, Cairo University. In 1950, the Institute was teachers. As one can expect, the difference between integrated with ANSU. In 1951, the institute started the culture of these educational institutions versus the a special diploma in Education and in 1956 became culture of learning communities resulted in mentors a Faculty of Education (please see http://edu.asu.edu. experiencing a number of difficulties while attempting eg/). The ANSU PCL group comes from this Faculty of to develop PCLs within schools and in the Faculty. Education. The team initially consisted of 18 members, These are explored in parts two and three below. assigned and selected by the Dean, based on their specialism and expertise. The team members came The University of Limerick (UL), ANSU’s European from a range of departments and areas of expertise partner, was established in 1972 as the National including Curriculum and instruction, English, Institute for Higher Education, Limerick and classified Biology, Chemistry, Sociology and International as the University of Limerick in 1989. The University relations. As the project progressed, two members of Limerick has over 11,600 students and 1,300 staff. left the team, described in more detail later in the case Its mission is to promote and advance learning and study, resulting in the project team consisting of 16 knowledge through teaching, research and scholarship members`rtner schools was described as individualistic in an environment, which encourages innovation and and competitive. It was suggested that ‘teachers are upholds the principles of free enquiry and expression competing with each other and not sharing’ (Aleya, (please see www.ul.ie). The University of Limerick Phase 2, 5th December, 2018). This was supported by offers a range of programmes in the disciplines of other interviewees, as reflected below: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Business, Education and Health Sciences as well as Science “Most of the teachers in our schools in Egypt, the and Engineering. The School of Education resides dominant culture is that the teacher inside the school:

21 in the Faculty of Education and Health Sciences. The majority of the team portrayed a strong commitment The School of Education is the largest post-primary to the project and their own professional development. teacher education provider in the state. It was Initially, team members were “so happy to participate established specifically to provide specialised teachers, in a new project” (Timeline talk, Phase 2, 6th December at undergraduate and Master’s level, in such subject 2018), had “a lot of enthusiasm” (Sara, Phase 2, 5th areas as Business, Languages, Mathematics, Music, December 2018) and were “very convinced, not only Materials and Architectural Technology, Materials of the idea of the project but the product” (Aleya, and Engineering Technology, Physical Education and Phase 2, 5th December 2018). This waned somewhat as Science (please see https://www.ul.ie/soedu/school- the project developed but increased again later in the education). project (as discussed in more detail later).

The four members of the University of Limerick The importance of intrinsic, rather than just extrinsic, team all reside in the Education and Health Sciences motivation emerged as a core difference between Faculty, three as lecturers in the School of Education members’ commitment to the PCL and their own and one as Emeritus Senior Lecturer in the Department CPD. The importance of the project for ANSU and of Physical Education and Sport Sciences. All team for the individuals own personal and professional members are qualified teachers, two in Physical development were key drivers for some members of Education and two in Science. The four members teach the team. For many, this was their first international and carry out significant research in the area of Initial project and they took great pride in it and in ensuring Teacher Education with an emphasis on, amongst other that they represented their university well, resulting things, school placement, identity, reflective practice in “most of the members are working because they and communities of practice. love to represent their institution” (Focus Group with ANSU management team, Phase 1, 12th October 2018). While the delivery of modules within the university At the outset, even though they saw it as a challenge, promotes individualism, with one lecturer per module, they were excited about the prospect: all members of the team have engaged in team teaching and peer observation/feedback at different stages of We are taking this project as a challenge. This is their career. According to one member ‘engaging in the the first project for most of us in the faculty of process of team teaching, where I planned, delivered and reflected on teaching with a colleague, was one education. And we are excited about the project of the best forms of professional development I have and its idea: we are very convinced about this idea ever engaged in’ (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May I am very convinced about the idea of the project. 2019). Similarly, collaborative research projects and (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) publications would be the norm within the School and amongst the four members of the team: ‘if I did research Others, it was believed, focused more on financial alone, then I would not get as many publications. Yes, numeration and extrinsic gain: you get less credit for a shared publication, but you get more papers out of the process, more citations and learn About two-thirds of our team members are very a lot from working with colleagues’ (UL Focus Group, committed and enjoy it. But about one-third Phase 3, 14th May 2019). Together, the four members measures the case with money... But two-thirds of the team have 127 publications in international peer- are working well….I think it is the internal reviewed journals/books, all of which are co-authored. commitment. I think because you agreed to join it you must complete it professionally. It takes a lot Part two: Deductive Data Analysis of time. You have to complete it and work hard. Based on teachersʼ needs and interests (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) As described in section 2, this principle focuses on This was specifically the case for two members of the participants being actively involved in decision-making, team who were not “doing well and were not committed having ownership and commitment to CPD, focuses on to the project.” (Focus Group with ANSU management work in classrooms and acknowledges the teacher’s prior th knowledge. team, Phase 1, 12 October 2018). Numerous attempts were made to encourage these mentors to engage, with

22 the Dean, for example, “sending them messages. When discuss the agenda. The discussion is limited. We I found this did not work, I started to raise this issue make the discussion about the reports/deadlines but formally by sending a letter to the Head of Department. not our problems inside our schools. We need to feel I asked her to ask them to be committed and involved” that our opinions are appreciated” (Dalah, Phase 2, 5th (Focus Group with ANSU management team, Phase 1, December 2018). Similarly, other interviewees felt that 12th October 2018). The lack of engagement of these “we need to develop more effective meetings, better two members impacted on other team members, with relationships, listening to each other and talking about most of the motivated people in the regular meetings our problems. Trying to find creative solutions to our saying “these two people are not coming to meetings problems” (Timeline talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). and they are not committed to the tasks and events” (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). After an It was suggested that for the FoE meetings to be attempted process of mediation, these mentors were improved and enhanced the members “could improve “replaced with other members” (Focus Group with taking feedback and sharing ideas or exchanging new th ANSU management team, phase 1). It was hoped that ideas” (Berenike, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). this would “be a push for the other people” (Husani, Initially, some members of the team felt tied to certain Phase 2, 5th December 2018). themes and topics, as set out by the project proposal, The importance of positive reinforcement and praise, and as a result, felt restricted in the early stages of the particularly from members of the ANSU management project when the school asks for other forms of support team, was a key motivator for members of the PCL. and input. The visits from UL also supported in this regard: “I am I feel sometimes that I am restricted….I want to go very happy from these 2 days and really we need it from to school...I want to make something…I have to many times ago. I thank the University of Limerick look at the project and the project goals...there are for giving the core team a hand, for motivating the certain things that are determined, like the themes, team” (Focus Group with mentors, Phase 1, 29th April you know…if the teachers need something else, 2018). They were also motivated by support from other if we have some ideas, you have to turn back to mentors, particularly those within their school teams this. No, we are restricted to these themes. (Aleya, and close relationships developed amongst small Phase 2, 5th December 2018) pockets of the PCL team. One obstacle the mentors came across was the changing Differing views existed however in relation to the of circumstances/decisions from the university/project, extent that members felt they had a say in key decisions particularly in terms of promises made to the schools relating to the project within ANSU. Some members that were changed at a later date. For example, one of the team believed that the introduction of set team school team agreed that students would visit the meetings (bimonthly) supported colleagues in having a university campus. When this fell through, the mentors voice and ownership of the process: felt that they had let the school down. They felt that this They now enjoy attending the meeting. Some of undermined their position in the school and damaged them suggest new approaches, new actions to be the relationships they were building. For example, taken inside the project to improve it. Some of one participant explained how “sometimes the larger them have tried to follow different approaches project team members or the ANSU management to teaching. All of these have been spoken about team say that we are going to do something inside the within the meetings so I can catch them. (Husani, school and then they say no we are going to do this” th Phase 2, 5th December 2018) (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5 December 2018).

However, the data reveals that others had concerns in This impacted, to some extent, on mentors initial feeling this regard and questioned, what they perceived, as of ownership and commitment at the start of the project a lack of a shared approach to decision-making. At and on the level of trust between teachers-mentors in times, not all members felt involved in the decision- the early stages of the project, with mentors stressing making processes with some stating that “we do not that “When we go to the school, we have to keep our

23 word” (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). As “Irrespective of whether we visit the school they can be seen below, this became less of an issue as the already have a meeting every week without us. They project progressed and relationships developed. already identify what they need and they develop workshops and document these meetings” (Safaa, The mentors viewed the school as the “real world” Phase 2, 5th December 2018). (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) and for the concept of PCL to work they had to be involved in the To summarise briefly, members of the group differed school community. In attempting to motivate teachers, in terms of motivation; some being motivated by mentors focused on the benefits to the lives and work the project, representing their institution and by the of teachers and students and “told them that we came concept of PCL. A small number of members were here to help their performance” (Dalah, Phase 2, 5th more motivated by financial factors, impacting on their December 2018). level of engagement and commitment with the project. Differing views emerged regarding mentors’ sense of The mentors had a set day each week to visit the school ownership and involvement in decision-making within and tried to keep to this to build a routine. Perhaps the ANSU project team. However, evidence emerged conscious of the hierarchical relationships that can exist between faculty members and schoolteachers, that some teachers, particularly in two schools, began the mentors focused on stressing to teachers how “we to take greater ownership of their PCL. are all the same. There is no upper or lower hand. We are exchanging experiences” (Safaa, Phase 2, 5th View learning as a social process December 2018). In some cases, the mentors recognise As evident in the literature, the establishment of PCLs the potential for two-way learning and as a result, both takes time, investment and trust. One significant way of parties learn from each other. Mentors explained how developing the workings of a PCL and the associated “we work together, we hear them, we care for their learning is through the establishment of the group th needs” (Safaa, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). Similarly, through social means. As outlined above, principle another mentor described how: two focuses on the relational aspect of a PCL, focusing We can share our experiences and knowledge on building strong working relationships, personal between us and the schoolteachers and there is no relationships, trust, collaboration. difference between us and them. It is not that we Building trust emerged as a core priority amongst only have the knowledge. We share. We share in faculty mentors and formed the basis of relationships their social events and lives. (Mamdouh, Phase 2, and interactions between the mentors and the school. 5th December 2018) Gaining school teachersʼ trust was a challenge When mentors faced resistance from teachers, they for mentors in the beginning. Initially, mentors th often highlighted and stressed the teacher”s knowledge experienced “a lot of problems” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 and experience and positioned themselves as lesser December) in schools. It was suggested that “teachers th in this regard. For example, one school team said to refuse to listen” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 December 2018) teachers “we [the mentors] want to learn from you [the and “trust did not exist at the start” (Dalah, Phase 2, th teacher] how to deal with your students because you 5 December 2018). As a result, priority was given are experienced” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March to “building trust amongst us and the schoolteachers” th 2019). (Timeline talk, Phase 2, 6 December 2018). When positive relationships between mentors and teachers Evidence emerged that teachers, in some schools, were developed, members believed that this: taking greater ownership of the PCL as it developed and were becoming less reliant on the mentors. This resulted in teachers meeting and discussing their work and the project irrespective of whether the mentor was present: “Even if we are not in the school, they try to meet without us” (Focus Group 1, Phase 3, 13th March 2019). Similarly, in another school:

24 Comes down to the trust that is forming between Interviewer: If you were to name these teams – your us. We are trying to build more intimate relation- school team and the bigger faculty team – what would ships between us and them. We are visiting them. you call them? We know about their personal problems. We are having chats. We have presentations and ceremo- Interviewee: The school team – it is my family. The nies. (Dalah, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) bigger team is the meeting team (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) “Building trust was not easy and took over a year and a half. This is a very long time in order to build the trust” This appears to apply more to small sub-groups, rather (Safaa, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). than the entire FoE team: “the whole team is not as close to some of us to each other” (Focus Group 2, Similarly, within the UL PCL, trust formed a core Phase 3, 13th March 2019). Similarly, one school group, aspect of the dynamics of the group: “I trust every during the timeline activity, indicated that a shared member of the UL community and I feel that they have vision began to emerge amongst the group but only my back. It is nice to know that. It makes it really easy. between “the three of us” rather than the entire FoE The trust issue has been a big part of it for me” (UL PCL (Timelines task, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019). Any problems or difficulties experienced by the group resulted in One outcome of the establishment of trust amongst “strengthening our community” (UL Focus Group, sub-groups, or mini PCLs, within ANSU, led to some Phase 3, 14th May 2019). members inviting colleagues to observe their teaching. The development of the PCL has positively impacted Experiencing problems also helped with social cohesion the sharing of knowledge and the practice of supporting amongst the ANSU mentors. The difficulties mentors each other through observation and feedback. Observing initially experienced in engaging and interacting with colleagues and sharing best practice was not part of the teachers made the mentor group stronger as they found participant’s professional journey prior to engaging with they were mentoring each other to come up with ways the PCL, acknowledging that this is such a new area: to break down barriers in the schools: My mentality has changed a little bit. As my Working at the school arose some problems. You background in technology, I was already using are a faculty member and your relation to the technology in teaching, but the mentality of the school is limited. So, when we entered the schools, community was absent for me. Now I am using we initially faced a lot of problems. Not our this approach, so I can share my experience and school, all the schools...Okay, I had a problem in ideas with my colleagues in my subject. I can my school, the teachers refuse to listen. Somebody suggest new improvements with the help of my else says, -Yes, we tried to chat with them-. So, I colleagues. (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) think that being involved in the schools is a reason that makes us stick together more and to feel The level of trust they had developed with their what is meant by mentoring. (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th colleagues gave them the confidence to have someone December 2018) come in and review their teaching and learning environment. Some members of the PCL (mainly As a result, high levels of trust were evident amongst the 3 mentors working in one school) now regularly smaller school team of mentors (2-3 members in each invite colleagues into their classes and actively seek school), almost creating mini PCLs within the Faculty feedback on their teaching. For others, however, this PCL. Members of these groups began to form “better was not normal practice even in the final stage of data knowledge of each other as human beings” (Timeline collection: talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). This resulted in mentors “understanding of each other better than others. We have something in common” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). The relationships between the small groups were strong, as evident in the excerpt:

25 “Till now it did not happen. I have no problem with to participate and contribute to the lesson and to being observed but we have a very loaded timetable engage with the student teachers. (Reflective Diary and schedule. We plan more together. We sit together Entry 2, Phase 3, 14th March 2019) before the semester” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th th March 2019). Participants in focus group 2 (phase 3, 13 March 2019) identified this principle as being the most evident The social and relational aspects of the PCL was within their schools: “we share food with each other. clearly evident to the researchers during their visits. They made a big celebration for their students, which The members of the Faculty PCL frequently had we attended. The principal of the school reached 60 so social gatherings to celebrate birthdays or special they had a party for her retirement, and they invited events. Members of the team would “bring basbusa3 us to go to this” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March to meetings to share with others” (Timeline talk, Phase 2019). 2, 6th December 2018). Interactions were warm, caring and friendly. Positive relationships also developed Humour and fun formed a core part of the PCL. This between members of the UL team and members of the was true of both the Egyptian and European partners ANSU team with, for example, gifts being shared with individually and their shared relationship. It was rare each other during visits, group dinners in the evening that an interaction/event would take place without following the workshops and personal interactions laughter. For example, the UL focus group (Phase 3, th regarding family. 14 May 2019) identified “humour as a key feature of our community. The community has evolved, and Similar positive relationships were evident between humour has been a core aspect of bringing it together. mentors and teachers in their allocated schools in There is also a lot of humour when we go to Egypt. the latter stages of the project. In the beginning, this We spend a lot of time laughing with each other” (UL appeared stifled. Many of the mentors were junior Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019). Similarly, members of staff either conducting or just completing another member of the UL group shared similar views: a PhD. This was their first venture into Erasmus+ projects and only one mentor had some school-based One of the strongest parts of the relationship experience. This initially created difficulties for the [between UL and ANSU] has been the interactions, mentors as they found it challenging to interact and talk that social piece. When we are there, they and we to the teachers in the school. One mentor, on engaging do enjoy the interactions. They love to laugh. They with the UL team early in the project, questioned “what really get into that piece. (UL Focus Group, Phase th should I talk to the teachers about when I visit the 3, 14 May 2019) school?” (Reflective Diary 1, Phase 1, 28th April 2018). Another change that positively affected the PCL Similarly, during an early workshop with teachers, was the move towards more informal interactions as the UL team observed “the mentors all sitting by the the community developed. While meetings became wall, while schoolteachers sat around the tables. Bar a more structured/formal, mentors would meet more few exceptions, the level of interaction was minimum” informally in parallel to these meetings. The mentor (Reflective Diary Entry 2, Phase 1, 29th April 2018). groups formed a strong bond over their experiences in However, this improved immensely by phase 3, with the school settings and their shared problems brought researchers observing: them together: “First, it was no, we have to meet two Very strong relationships between mentors and times per month. Then, it becomes a more casual way th teachers. The interactions are friendly and caring. with coffee” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). These mentors, who had previously been con- cerned about what to say to the teachers, were at Similarly, the UL team viewed itself as being “not very ease, interacted freely and professionally. This formal. Its informal, relaxed, honest relationship that moved beyond just social interaction as one men- makes it a bit easier. There is an informality around it” th tor invited a teacher and students into her lecture (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14 May 2019).

3 A cake specific to Egypt and the Middle East

26 In summary, the data shows that emphasis was placed to first have it in FOE so the student teachers who will on building trust between teachers and mentors and each be teachers are aware of it” (Management team Focus other. This resulted in trusting relationships forming Group, Phase 1, 12th October 2018). between sub-groups within ANSU and between school mentors and teachers. This trust enabled greater As a result, evidence emerged that classrooms within observation and collaboration between colleagues and ANSU became more democratic in nature, with men- resulted in very positive relationships forming with tors integrating reflection, peer and self-assessment/ teachers. Relationships focused on social gatherings, feedback into the learning experience with student sharing food and fun. Problems experienced by the teachers. For example: mentors in the schools had the effect of bringing them I was focusing on giving the students written and together in an attempt to solve these issues. Evidence oral feedback...but now they are receiving this emerged that interactions between some sub-groups from me and from their peers as well so if any within ANSU became less formal as the project student-teacher is making a presentation, he has progressed. like 35 written feedback and oral ones as well. th Include Collaborative Opportunities (Berenike, Phase 2, 5 December 2018) Principle 3 sees teachers working together within a I think our teaching began to change…….and we respectful environment, reflecting on successes and began by making the student, by making the PCL failures and engaging in challenging discussions. between our students, and also the idea of reflection, we supported the idea of reflection between our The existing culture within the university and students and also our studentsʼ performance began schools, prior to the project, as previously described, to increase because they support each other. They was individualistic and competitive. These limited take the feedback, continuous feedback from each opportunities for collaboration within the context was other. I think their performance is very improved. a barrier to overcome at the start of the project. This (Sara, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) appeared particularly true in schools. According to one mentor, “the concept of PCL is not well known Members of the UL team were invited to attend four inside the school. The teachers were not too interested different sessions during Phase 2 of data collection. in learning about it. They were afraid and suspicious” Reflective diary entries describe “a student-centered (Timelines talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). When classroom, where students are encouraged to a mentor suggested to a teacher “why do not you go participate, give their views, provide feedback to their with another one in the class and see his performance peers, and have fun” (Reflective diary entries 2, Phase from another eye...he said “what you are saying is 2, 6th December 2018). impossible...I never, never, never go to my colleague’s class and see him and he would never come to my class As the PCL developed, some mentors (mainly three and see me” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). members of one team) invited colleagues into their classrooms to observe their teaching and give feedback. However, engagement in the project and exploring the Whilst they acknowledged that this was difficult at concept of PCL resulted in greater collaboration within the start, they found that it positively impacted their the faculty members as mentors realised that “the ap- teaching: proach of the community is much better than depend- th ing on themselves” (Hsuani, Phase 2, 5 December My colleague attended some of my sessions and 2018). Student teachers appear to be a strong focus in sat at the back and gave me feedback about the this regard. It seems that many of the members of the session. And I was so okay with that and I even PCL started to incorporate greater collaborative op- called him to see how things went and to take portunities into their classrooms and began supporting feedback. (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) student teachers to form PCLs. This was identified by members of the management team who explained how Certain cultural norms that supported individualism “what is more important than having PCL in schools is and competitiveness continue to persist however and

27 are potential barriers to the development of a PCL. For Although teachers continued to resist structured obser- example, focus group participants in phase 3 explain vation/reflection, they did begin to share experiences how: and resources more with each other and to “share expe- rience, to share the success stories and so on. Now, for When we try to make collaborative research, we the last visits of schools, some of the teachers already take a lower credit. To make the position of assistant changed their mentality. Now they share with their col- professor, we must make 7 individual research leagues” (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). projects. If we make collaborative research with our colleagues we must make individual research In comparison to this, student teachers, on school to provide balance for this one. (Focus Group 1, placement, frequently engaged in team-teaching and Phase 3, 13th March 2019) observation, feedback and shared reflective practice. This appeared to be the norm for these students and Teachers in schools continued to resist such was viewed as a core aspect of their professional observations and feedback. While one example of team development. This occurred with their peers and teaching within schools was described by mentors, this with an experienced placement teacher/mentor. For was not the norm. In one example: example:

We made a presentation, all of us. An English We gain an understanding of teamwork and teacher, a philosophy teacher, an Arabic teacher, everyone has multiple perspectives. The process is the art teacher, the psychological specialist within so helpful to us. For example, if some of us have the school. The students were very active and very a situation in class or have a problem in my class interested in this workshop. This was the first we have a meeting and a solution. (Focus Group time to make the workshop on one lesson with student teachers, phase 2, 5th December 2018) many teachers contributing. (supervisor teacher, Focus Group with student teachers, phase 2, 5th “I realise that everyone has their own and many December 2018) experiences. I am not the only one with experience. The project gave me the spirit of learning from others” Three teachers team-taught a class. Three teachers (teacher, student-teacher Focus Group, phase 2, 5th from three specialisations – one hand and one December 2018). lesson. This lesson was about water. A philosophy, history and chemistry teacher all handled the same Students also engaged in teamwork to design lessons lesson from a different point. (Safaa, Phase 2, 5th and teaching resources: “these are group activities and December 2018) we plan them together. We work in groups. We have a meeting with the faculty, and we think about the School teachers, who were reluctant to let colleagues material. This meeting is weekly” (student teachers view their teaching, identified a novel approach to begin Focus Group, phase 2). the process of observation and feedback. Teachers in this school recorded an aspect of their teaching and The mentors also recognised that they became mentors shared this with their colleagues. This provided a to each other when they helped each other overcome safe environment for teachers to begin opening their problems they were facing in the schools. The mentor- classroom and teaching practices to others: mentor relationship was strengthened through sharing experiences, problems and “success stories” (Husani, It was not accepted to share experiences and to Phase 2). For example: go to class with each other. They started to video record and share it with each other. The idea of We talk more. We have conversations more, we going to each other’s class is not accepted. If they discuss stuff with each other more...we have things show each other the videos from their class maybe in common, like this project. We share our expe- they see the impact of it and apply it more in their riences in the school...the fun part of the project. practice. (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March You know, we go to the school and we have ad- 2019) ventures. So now we share these adventures, or our

28 visits. Every group has different ideas and some- (Dalah, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). It was perceived thing new. So, when we share these experiences that problems were viewed negatively within the with each other, I think it helps. (Aleya, Phase 2, ANSU project team, rather than as a normal part of the 5th December 2018) process of developing a PCL:

As above, the importance of trust also featured when Because we have deadlines we do not have time to discussing collaboration with other project members. talk about your problems. Now is the time to write All had to learn how to engage in the process of giving the reports…it is time to take photos. in order to and taking feedback from each other in a supportive achieve a real result, we need to speak about our manner: problems. (Safaa, Phase 2, 5th December 2018)

Well at the beginning the idea of getting feedback They view our problems as a negative attitude, from a peer or something like that was a bit whereas negative issues are normal. We speak sensitive to them or they did not want it very about our problems, so we can learn from it and much. They did not feel comfortable with it. In solve it...it is natural to face these problems but we giving them a very brief orientation of, how this are trying to develop creative solutions. To reach feedback would be very beneficial for them and it some sort of agreement for appropriate solutions. is not criticism. Also, giving them some ways to (Jamila, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) give feedback, gently. Without criticism the other person….so on one side they learned how to give To summarise briefly, while collaborative relationships feedback without attacking the other person or did not form part of the norm within these institutions, judging them. And the person who received the some opportunities for observation resulted from feedback from their peers were open to it, because engaging in the project. However, within the FoE this they know it is not personalised. (Berenike, Phase remained minimum. Classrooms did become more 2, 5th December 2018) collaborative and democratic. School teachers began talking and sharing experiences more but continued to Trust appeared strongest amongst the individual school resist any form of observation. Some found innovative groups as against the larger faculty team: “amongst the ways of sharing their teaching practice within a context team, in the project (school team) there is a high level where observation was not supported. Student teachers, of trust. We know each other before and we know each in comparison, were open to all forms of collaborative th other” (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). relationships and emerged as a core strength of the FoE PCL. Risk-taking did not emerge as a significant aspect of the PCL. However, context is important here and it Is Ongoing and sustained should be acknowledged that opening one’s classroom or sharing one’s practice with others may have Principle four indicates that professional learning and carried significant risk for members. As stated above, engagement are extended over a period of time, consists some members perhaps felt restricted by the project of on-site follow-up and supports members to bring objectives in terms of their interactions with teachers/ their experiences back to the group for discussion. schools and felt that they could not move away from The “ongoing” nature of a PCLs was acknowledged the set project description. by members. Interviewees stressed the “lifelong” th Evidence emerged, as outlined above, that mentors, (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5 December 2018) nature of working in smaller groups, discussed and explored the learning and professional development. PCLs were issues/problems they were experiencing in schools. viewed as supporting people to “not stop learning” th However, many mentors suggested that the ANSU (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 December 2018) and were viewed project meetings do not provide sufficient space to as an effective “strategy of learning inside the FOE engage in open and critical discussion. While mentors in the coming years” (Focus Group with ANSU th indicated that “we do that [have critical discussions] management team, Phase 1,12 October 2018). with teachers but here [in the FoE] it does not work”

29 A slight tension emerged in relation to participant’s Significant improvements occurred in three of the views regarding the speed at which change, specifically five schools. In one case, a small group of teachers change in beliefs and attitudes, would come about. On began attending meetings more regularly, making one hand, it was acknowledged that changes “will be it easier to begin the process of developing a PCL. in the long run. It needs a long time” (Husani, Phase 2, One of these mentors explained how they [the 5th December 2018), that change is “slow” (Timelines teachers] now enjoy attending the meetings. Some talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018) and consists of of them suggest new approaches, new actions to “small steps. This is difficult to change” (Husani, Phase be taken inside the project to improve it. Some of 2, 5th December 2018). However, mentors experienced them have tried to follow different approaches to frustrations when they did not see the impact of the teaching. (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) project straight away. For example, Aleya explained how “sometimes it is frustrating, you know? When you Similarly, in two of the schools, as described above, cannot see any progress, especially at the school, it is the teachers became more self-sufficient, meeting at more frustrating, you know?” (Phase 2, 5th December a regular time each week irrespective of whether the 2018). Later in phase three of data collection, mentors mentors were there or not. This bodes well for the expressed frustration that “we were stuck in the school sustainability of the PCL in these settings. and the problems of the school, the conflicts between Within the FoE PCL, meetings were initially “irregular. the teachers, so we are seeking to see progress. We They were not systematic” (Timeline talk, Phase 2, want to see the impact” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th 6th December 2018). The introduction of structured March 2019). timetabled meetings helped to provide greater clarity Supportive structures, particularly timetabled meetings, and coherence to the project and the work of the were central to supporting the sustainability of the team. This took some time to establish as “now, our PCL. This was true of both the university and schools. regular meetings, in the past, some would come to In both cases, difficulties were initially experienced one [meeting] and be absent for 2 or 3. Now, most th in this regard. In schools, mentors found it difficult enjoy by attending the meetings” (Husani, Phase 2, 5 to meet teachers, particularly the same teachers, on December 2018). a regular basis. Frequently, mentors would meet new As stated above, the problems experienced by mentors teachers or a smaller group of teachers, on consecutive in their schools brought them closer together to share visits. Sometimes teachers that initially engaged and discuss these issues. However, as noted previously, in the project were not permanent in the school and this tended to happen more informally, within school would have moved school before the next visit. This groups, rather than in the formal whole group meetings. fragmented the relationships and development of the PCL. The UL team experienced difficulties also in sustaining relationships and a mentorship role from afar. Face to The challenge that we face, and I bet other schools face interactions were deemed “powerful” and “really do as well, is having a fixed time in the schedules positive” (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019) but of teachers, so that we can meet more. [The are ‘lost when we [UL] leave. We struggle to develop teachers] have a lot of work, they are rarely free at that relationship over Skype, WhatsApp or email. Once the same time, so we meet with them individually we leave, we lose it. It cannot be sustained’. As a result, or a couple of them every time. It would be better the development of the PCL between UL and ANSU if they had a fixed free time. ...we are trying to do was viewed as consisting of ‘peaks and troughs’: this, but we are struggling. We can meet like, two teachers at this time, in this meeting, and the next We almost have peaks when we are there and then time we will meet the others, three or four teachers. there is a big dip and each time you go. It is proba- It would be better, even to share new things and bly easier to make that peak again on the next visit, share new ideas if we can meet at the same time. because you have that previously experienced, but (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) this still is the dip. (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019)

30 This is discussed in more detail under the inductive knowledge. This could be reflective of an educational results below. context, which seemingly prioritises the transmission of knowledge and information. This was also evident in Two approaches adopted by the FoE team have the the mentors’ approach to assisting the teachers in their potential to support the sustainability of the PCL within school-based PCLs. Emphasis was initially placed on ANSU and schools. Firstly, the focus placed on student providing workshops and training for teachers, perhaps teachers and the integration of PCL principles into the reflecting a transmission approach to teacher CPD. initial teacher education experience should maintain the For example, “we share new things to train them on” sustainability of the project. For example, participants (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018), “they needed th in focus group 2 (Phase 3, 13 March 2019) explained a session on how to design the magazine” (Dalal, Phase how “this is the point of sustainability. the teachers 2, 5th December 2018) and “I guess it is the traditional inside the school learning from the practicum students. way…...Going to give you a workshop or a small We want to see the impact on the students.” training about using technology” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). The fact that supervisor teachers in these schools are already speaking about the impact of these student This is also what teachers appear to expect. When teachers (and the project) on their practice is very mentors visited the school to engage with teachers positive in this regard. Secondly, stronger links were regarding the project, teachers asked “so you are going made with the Cairo Directorate. ANSU had existing to train us, what is the training about?” (Timeline talk, relationships with the Cairo Directorate in terms Phase 2, 6th December 2018). The fact that the project of school placement arrangements for pre-service had five underpinning themes may have reinforced teachers and CPD provision for in-service teachers. this, with teachers thinking: “Okay, you are going to In an attempt to support and ensure the sustainability give us training on STEM and globalisation. Ok…no, of the project, ANSU invited a member of the Cairo this is not the idea of the project!” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th Directorate to be a part of the ANSU PCL. This December 2018). member, who is currently completing a Ph.D. in ANSU, engaged as a full member of the PCL, engaging with Similarly, slight tensions emerged between the schools and teachers. As a result of this partnership, the perceived role of the European partner by a said approach adopted by the Cairo Directorate CPD unit partner and the Egyptian counterpart. Reflective has changed, resulting in a shift in focus towards an diaries describe how, during initial workshops, UL emphasis on PCLs and the clustering of schools. team members perceived that “we are expected to be the experts, to provide an immediate solution to any To briefly conclude, the main ways in which this problem” (Reflective Diary 1, Phase 1, 28th April 2018). principle was evident in the data related to the focus This was supported by the initial focus group with the placed on student teachers and the relationships formed ANSU management team (Phase 1, 12th October 2018) with the Cairo Directorate. Structured scheduled and a later focus group amongst the UL team (Phase meetings were important here and, once established, 3): For example, early in the project members of the helped significantly with the development of the PCL. management teams explained how “the mentors do get something from you but not enough. They need more Treats teachers as active learners from you” (Focus Group with ANSU management This characteristic comprises two sub-categories. team, phase 1, 12th October 2018). Towards the end of Firstly, the development of pedagogical activities the project, UL team members reflected on this: which involves learners in the ‘hands-on’ construction of knowledge. Secondly, harnessing interaction and They initially kept thinking that our role is to give feedback as a tool for development. them stuff. To give them PowerPoints, to give them information, to give them training. They felt The researchers initially struggled to identify many we were not giving them enough when we felt we instances of pedagogical activities explicitly designed kept giving more and more. (UL Focus Group, to involve the learners in the co-construction of Phase 3, 14th May 2019)

31 Through facilitation rather than lecturing, the UL team The mentors placed a priority on embedding the attempted to break down this perception regarding their principles of PCL into the practice of FOE as they purpose within the project (as a mentor), modelling an believed that by faculty members modelling PCL for alternative way of facilitating workshops with teachers. student teachers during their ITE, it would instil a Attempts were made to support ANSU mentors to culture of collaboration, which would eventually flow realise the expertise that already existed within the to schools once the student teachers qualified: group and to realise that they had the capabilities to solve any issues they experienced: What is more important than having PCL in schools is to first have it in FOE so the student teachers I also think it is important for the mentors to know who will be teachers are aware of it. It is important that we are here to help but it is not our role to just that the Department of Curricula should foster this give them all of the information. Sometimes it is type of learning inside the FOE. This would mean by asking a question that we can support someone that student teachers would be familiar with this rather than giving them information. (UL team culture already and would use it with their kids member, Focus Group with ANSU management inside their schools. (Focus Group with ANSU team, phase 1, 12th October 2018) management team, Phase 1, 12th October 2018)

Some progress was made in this regard, with mentors I am trying to extend the concept with my own identifying the experiences and understanding within students. Getting them to share experiences the group and also potential approaches they could together….I can see the impact inside the school. adopt with teachers in schools: The practicum students - I can see the impact on them. It is beginning to become clear, the concept The two days…I was told it was a workshop, so of PCL to them. (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December I expected to get material, to receive information. 2018) However, it was very nice that we got the knowledge and information from inside ourselves. Some evidence emerged of mentors adopting a more You were excellent at doing that and extracting learner-centered approach to teaching and learning, everything from inside ourselves. It was a real following engagement in the project. Six interviewees eye-opener for the coming period of time. (Focus mentioned a shift in terms of the role of the student Group with mentors, phase 1, 29th April 2018) in their classroom. Instead of transmitting the required information, these mentors began to involve the What has been done through the two days is an students in both the collection and construction of example of what we are going to do in the school knowledge. This has resulted in a more active and in the future. We have exchanged experiences student-centered environment. The ‘hands-on’ nature and we have learned from one another. That is of students trialling methods is a positive indication of exactly what we are going to do in the future in the a movement towards the promotion of active learning: schools. (Focus Group with mentors, phase 1, 29th April 2018) My lecture began to be active, based on learners, not based on me. We collect, I do not give them all Mentors began to see that “we have the solutions that the data. They give me the data, not I tell them this can help us to change a part of our society” (Focus data. I think my lecture is becoming very active. th Group with mentors, phase 1, 29 April 2018). Very active. (Jamila, Phase 2, 5th December 2018)

As the project progressed, evidence also emerged that Observations of mentor’s classes supported these a) emphasis was placed on exposing student teachers to claims. The researchers observed four lectures and the concept of PCL b) mentors integrated more learner- found “interactive, engaging and student-centered centered approaches into their teaching and c) greater approaches where student teachers are encouraged evidence of interactions, observations and feedback to engage in shared critical reflection on each other’s emerged. practices” (Reflective Diary 2, Phase 2, th6 December 2018).

32 A learner-centered approach to teaching was partic- on their performance together and after that self- ularly high amongst student teachers, who displayed reflection (Focus Group with student teachers, Phase and discussed various resources and activities they had 2, 5th December 2018). developed as part of their practicum experience. Work- ing collaboratively, as previously described, student To summarise, reliance on a transmission approach to teachers: CPD emerged from both teachers and some mentors’ expectations of learning in the project. This began to Changed the information in the book into activities change as the project progressed. Evidence emerged and something we can see. The information is that mentors introduced the concepts of PCLs into their given to students in an easy way than to motivate teaching, with classrooms becoming more learner- them and attract their attention. The process of centered. Again, student teachers were particularly teaching itself is in two ways, between teachers strong in this regard. and students. (Focus Group with student teachers, phase 2, 5th December 2018) Enhances Teachers’ Pedagogical Skills and Content Knowledge The practice of colleagues entering, observing and Principle 6 explores teaching skills, supporting teachers providing feedback on each other’s teaching was not to master content, evaluate performance and focus on common amongst FOE members prior to this project. meaningful learning related to their daily lives. Trust emerged as a potential rationale for the previous lack of engagement in this collaborative approach, as It was evident that engagement with this project and previously discussed. The following interview captures the exposure to the concept of PCL had an influence on how engagement in this project has led them to trust the mentors’ pedagogical skills and content knowledge, their colleagues more and allow for collaborative with mentors beginning to change their teaching opportunities to inform their practice. approaches. For example, Sara captured this sentiment by explaining: I trust to make the other colleagues enter with me during my teaching, and make the reflection with During my teaching, I began to apply the culture them about my performance, at the beginning of of PCL between my students. My performance, I the project I did not use the idea of the PCL. (Sara, think, is very much improved. I think and also with Phase 2, 5th December 2018) my students, types of my lecture it is changed. (Phase 2, 5th December 2018) Despite the initial concerns, encouragingly, it seems that three mentors have embraced the potential benefits As noted earlier, the main emphasis was placed on of involving others in the observation and development embedding these principles into the experiences of their teaching. Time pressures and a heavy workload of students while on their initial teacher education appear to hamper this for the remaining mentors. programme. Student teachers placed significant time and energy into planning and developing interactive Again, observation and shared reflection was perceived resources that would motivate and engage students in as a normal practice amongst the student teachers and their learning. Student teachers, working in groups, formed a central part of their practicum experience: devised activities that “try to attract students and Student: One of us goes and observes a teacher, then involve them in the lesson”. In doing so, student two of us enter one class. One of us is a teacher and the teachers were conscious of “the number of students in other one is observing. After the lesson, we meet with the class so all of these activities are suitable for large th the supervisor to discuss the teaching strengths classes” (Focus Group student teachers, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). The grading of school placement Researcher: and would you [the supervisor] sit in on supported student teachers to adopt a student-centred that class as well? philosophy of education:

Teacher: Yes, I would encourage them to reflect My way of teaching in the class. Do I teach from my heart or just to get the grade? The types of activities

33 I use within the class. My affinity in teaching the We now tell our students here more about the students. Am I just a traditional teacher or am I a teacher’s life within the school. There is a gap well-educated teacher, I have many examples or between the students who are going to be the just the book or….the relationship and humanity teachers of the future and the real teachers. So now between the student and the teacher. (Focus Group we are telling them more about teachers lives and student teachers, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) school life. (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March 2019) These approaches (and engagement in the project) appear to have had a positive influence on the Being inside the school and going to the school pedagogical knowledge of the supervisor teacher. changed my perspective of the teachers. Firstly, The two teachers explained how, as a result of the maybe I was judgemental. I thought they just did project, they “use many new activities and new ways not want to work and blamed everything but when of teaching…. I learned a lot from the project. I was a I entered school, most of them are very active and traditional teacher. I learned how to be an active and love their work. They do complain a lot but they creative teacher. I have learned many methodologies” are committed and they love their students. (Focus (Supervisory teacher, student-teacher Focus Group, Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March 2019) Phase 2, 5th December 2018). It would appear therefore that the principles of working The project also impacted on the placement experience in collaboration with colleagues within the PCL have of students at the University of Limerick with members flowed into the mentors, student teachers and teachers of the team, who are involved in organising the classrooms. placement experience, extending and further promoting PCLs in terms of school-university partnership during Reflection and reflective practice also became more placement. The UL team now encouraged tutors to common as a result of engaging in the project. While engage with school personnel and student teachers with mentors were not “making any type of reflection the focus on extending communities of learning. Based before”, reflecting on one’s practice became something th on the model of dedicated teams building partnerships “stable” as a result of the PCL (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 with schools in ASU, the UL team have attempted to December 2018). This was done in an informal rather mirror this on a smaller scale and extend in others. They than written format. The excerpt below illustrates how now promote triad meetings (tutor-student teacher- mentors engaged in reflection for their students. cooperating teacher), observations, feedback sessions, Okay, today I met my students and I told them and resource development. Similarly, the concept of about reflection, okay? And I think that reflection PCL has been embedded more within the Foundation is a very important thing for the teacher. And I’m studies modules taken by pre-service students at the teaching that to the micro-teaching course for, University of Limerick. Within an undergraduate maybe, eight years, and I did not take anything and postgraduate module titled ‘Curriculum policy about reflection, even myself. Myself, sometimes, and reform’, students now explore the principles I finish my section or lecture and I think, Okay, it underpinning PCL in more detail when exploring the was better to do this, it was better to tell them, to concepts of school culture and curriculum change. begin with what. This is for minutes or seconds, Work within the schools also provided mentors in my head, adjusted….. But now, I think that with additional stories to integrate into the teaching reflection is the very most important thing that I with student teachers and offered them a greater have to do. You know, something stable. I finish understanding of the lives of practising teachers. This my section and I have to do this reflection….It gave mentors an additional pedagogical strategy to began within the project. No, I was not making th draw on in their teaching: any type of reflection before. (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 December 2018)

A number of mentors highlight the critical role of reflection in learning to become a teacher. Mentor A

34 explains that this is a natural component of teaching Care came from different places within the FoE teams. and that they were simply not documenting their post- Mentors cared for and supported each other within lecture reflections. As a result, by documenting and school groups, as previously described. As the project sharing the reflections the mentors provided examples progressed, the two Deans played an important role in of how to approach but also implicitly deconstruct supporting and caring for the group. They “offer all potential hierarchies that can open new avenues for the facilities to support us……supports us with the conversation within the classroom. good words” (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). Interestingly, both partners (Egyptian and European) In summary, evidence emerged that engagement in the had a senior retired member of the team who played project enhanced the pedagogical approaches of student a strong caring role within the groups. Within ANSU teachers, teachers, and mentors, resulting in classrooms FoE, this member played a strong role in supporting becoming more student-centred. The experience in the more junior members of staff and was viewed as schools provided mentors with an additional discourse “hearing us clearly” (Safaa, Phase 2, 5th December to draw on when engaging with student teachers. 2018) and being “like my Godmother to me” (Masud, Members began to realise the importance of reflective Phase 2, 5th December 2018). This senior member of practice and integrated this more into their practice in the team was also viewed as playing the role of critical an informal way. friend and mentor and was “open-minded. You go to her, and she encourages you, «Okay, this is good. You Facilitated with care can improve it here and I give you some books.» She The penultimate principle focuses on the centrality of gets the project. She is very experienced” (Aleya, Phase care within the community, where people feel listened 2, 5th December 2018). Similarly, within the UL team, a to and respected and are challenged in a supportive senior member of staff was viewed as “the heart” of the way. team”, who has “knowledge and experience” but more importantly, “the care that she brings, the positivity, the For the mentors, their own faculty PCL required time enthusiasm, the relational and personal approach” (UL and careful effort to establish trust within the group. As Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019). the mentors work in the PCL began to develop, their relationships as a faculty PCL also strengthened around The mentors highlighted a number of issues regarding a shared interest; the project. As previously outlined, the facilitation of the faculty PCL meetings/team that Interviewee A explains that as the mentors experienced impacted on their investment and commitment to the ‘adventures’ within the school they formed a common wider project. There was a call for the FOE group bond to help and support each other. Alongside the to be, at times, more thoughtful and intentionally more formal team meetings, mentors began having facilitated. Namely, as outlined below, concerns were more informal interactions with each other, based on expressed regarding time, workloads and a lack of shared experiences and problems. clarity around expectations/roles. Short-notice requests to attend events or to submit documentation have at The role and nature of feedback was also a feature times resulted in the mentors feeling overwhelmed or of thoughtful, careful and intentional facilitation. struggling with the role. Therefore, while trust is a key As the introduction of PCL evoked seemingly new component for the development of relationships in PCL principles of collaboration and opening one’s practice clarity of roles, expectations, and time requirements to observation, there was a widespread vulnerability are also essential external factors to consider when of having a colleague observing and commenting on establishing PCLs: their practice. Doing so was viewed, as being “a bit th sensitive” (Berenike, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). We have to look at the administrative problems There initially seemed a fear of confusing feedback as [within ANSU] that may stop the process. We criticism, which reduced as trust developed between need more flexibility in the way of treating by some colleagues and as members learned to “give the management team. When they ask us to do a th feedback…without criticism” (Berenike, Phase 2, 5 report or to do the case study or to collect data, December 2018). sometimes we do not know what to do and we

35 make what we can do and send it to them and they about the reports/deadlines but not our problems inside get sent back to us and tell us no this is not what our schools. We need to feel that our opinions are we want. So we say tell us what you want…what appreciated” (Jamila, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). is the missing part. The deadline problems and we are told you have to do this within three days. They In conclusion, care was evident in different aspects of always give us very short deadlines…. I am just the team and in different relationships. Strong levels surprised by the tasks I am told I have to do right of care were evident within smaller working groups now. (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) within the ANSU faculty team. Retired members of staff were viewed as central to the care provided within This issue, along with a heavy teaching workload and the two institutions. The Deans were also influential some mentors not engaging sufficiently in the project, within ANSU. Differing views emerged however initially resulted in frustration amongst other team as to the extent to which members felt listened to members. A number of steps were taken to alleviate within the wider team and calls were made for more these concerns. careful facilitation in terms of certain aspects of the team. A number of steps were taken to help alleviate Firstly, two school mentors were replaced, as these concerns, which had a positive impact on the previously described. These mentors did not engage development of the PCL (as described in more detail in in the project, did not attend team meetings and were the inductive section below). having a negative impact on other mentors. It was suggested that these mentors “had a negative impact Focus on improving learning outcomes for on the team” (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) and students following a process of mediation “were replaced with The final principle focuses on students and stresses that th another two members” (Husani, Phase 2, 5 December professional development, within PCLs, should focus 2018). This situation was further explained by this on teachersʼ practices in an attempt to improve student interviewee who believed that: outcomes.

Replacing these two people will be a push for other It is interesting that learners did not always feature in people. Because most of the motivated people in the mentors’ understanding of the project and rationale the regular meetings would be saying ‘these two for engaging in professional development/PCLs. people are not coming to our meetings and they are Rather priority was afforded to the teachers (either not committed to the tasks and events. Why are we themselves or schoolteachers) learning, practices committed? It is a big load on us because they are and behaviours. For example, mentors explained absent always’. But we gave them many chances, how “I think the purpose of project, building a good and at the last, we had to replace them to keep the relationship between different colleagues, to make committed group. the professional development for our performance” (Sara, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) and “the idea of Secondly, clearer roles were assigned to different improving the continuous professional development members of the management team and new academic of teachers” (Dalah, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). members of staff joined the management team. These Similarly, another mentor believed the project was to: additional members/clearer roles had a positive impact on the team e.g. “Dr. X, he is really organised and “encourage the teachers to complete in their profes- helpful. He sends everything right away” (Berenike, sional development, not to stop learning, to change Phase 2, 5th December 2018). their mind-sets about being a traditional teacher in the school” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). Thirdly, “more systematic meetings” were introduced (Timeline talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). However, The influence that this assumed professional develop- as previously discussed, concerns still remain ment will be having on the nature of learning within regarding the extent to which mentors felt listened to the classrooms and student’s experiences were not during key meetings: “We do not discuss the agenda. explicit. Perhaps, it is implied that with development The discussion is limited. We make the discussion

36 comes an improvement in instructional practices and The focus on student teachers was so strong, that experiences for learners as well. It was suggested that one interviewee deemed it to be their main focus in this principle was the weakest of all eight principles terms of developing a PCL: “I do not recall that it was within schools as teachers were still “focusing on the applicable with my colleagues. It was inside my classes principles of PCL and the relationships between them- with my students. I was trying to make every class like selves rather than the outcomes for their students” (Fo- a small community so that we can help one another, cus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March 2019). we can discuss things...things like that…..” (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). It was suggested that as a The impact on students was evident within the FoE result of supporting student teachers to develop PCLs, in two main ways, however. Firstly, the emphasis was “students” performance began to increase because placed on exposing student teachers to the concepts they support each other. They take feedback from each of PCL, particularly during their school placement other. Their performance is very improved (Sara, Phase experience. This was a strategic move by the FoE 2, 5th December 2018). team in order to implement change into schools in Egypt. Many of the mentors suggested that the Secondly, mentors attempted to make their teaching principles of PCL should be embedded in the initial more student-centred and democratic. Aleya, for teacher education programmes so that student teachers example, explained how “I have been teaching are entrenched in values such as collaboration and Microteaching for the pre-service teachers for 6 years. community on graduation. Perhaps this is a critical I was asking the students to work in teams and share recognition of the structures in which teachers operate ideas and exchange experiences. I did not know that and that the workload of teachers may create obstacles this was called peer communities of learners. But for this form of development. It was believed that after joining the project, I feel that I have to enhance established and experienced teachers, being “heavily these communities among the students to be their loaded with work” (Focus Group 1, Phase 1, 29th April methodology of teaching when they are graduated and 2018), would be less open to altering their practice. teach at schools for our kids” (Phase 2, 5th December Equipping student teachers during their initial teacher 2018). Similarly, Husani suggested that “before joining education appears as a naturally proactive means to the project, [my teaching style] depended mainly on challenge silo cultures. As a result, the emphasis was the lecture style, but since my enrollment in the project placed on “student teachers who will be teachers… and engaging in peer learning communities had a becoming familiar with this culture” (Masud, Phase 2, positive impact on my teaching style. I have adopted 5th December 2018). It was hoped that these student new teaching methods using the student-centered teachers would “take what they learn to the school” approach” (Phase 2, 5th December 2018). (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) and “would use it with their kids inside their schools” (Aleya, In summary, it appears that emphasis was initially Phase 2, 5th December 2018). placed more on the teacher, rather than the student, when forming PCLs within schools. In comparison, The impact of this was already evident within the student teachers were central to the project within practice of student teachers and supervisor teachers ANSU. Evidence emerged that teaching approaches within the project schools. For example, one of the within both the FoE and the schools became more teachers who engaged in the focus group along with student-centred. student teachers explained how these student teachers “add to me new ideas, new examples not from the book Brief Summary of Deductive Results but from outside. They add creative aids. They have a A number of positives emerged from the data relating sense of humour inside the class” (Supervisory teacher, to the development of PCLs in ANSU and between student-teacher Focus Group, Phase 2, 5th December ANSU and schools. The focus on student teachers 2018). Similarly, Mamdouh believed that they “can see was particularly strong, with student teachers working the impact inside the school on the practicum students. collaboratively, sharing and reflecting together during The concept of PCL is beginning to become clear to their placement experience. This appears to be having them” (Phase 2, 5th December 2018). a positive impact on the supervisory teachers, who get

37 new ideas for their teaching from the students. Evi- following the in-depth discussion between the research dence emerged, through observations and interviews, team, are 1) ‘differing meanings attached to the concept that teaching approaches within ANSU became more of PCL’, 2) ‘Culture as a constraining factor?’, 3) ‘The student-centred and democratic in nature. Students varying journey of PCLs, and 4) ‘the use of supportive were offered more opportunities to provide feedback technology in developing a PCL.’ to their peers as part of the learning experience. The reflective practice became an important aspect of the Meanings attached to the concept of PCL professional development of mentors, albeit in an in- An aspect of the interviews/focus groups explored the formal way. Engaging with teachers and schools pro- meaning individual mentors attached to the concept of vided mentors, who had limited experiences in this re- PCL. Meaning is important as within change processes gard, with additional stories and perspectives to draw people can attach different meaning to initiatives on in their teaching. Social relations were also partic- resulting in varied implementation practices (Fullan, ularly strong. This was true of mentors-teachers and 2001). Four main interpretations of PCLs emerged sub-groups within ANSU. A lot of time and energy was from the data. These align most with Principle 2 (views invested in developing trust between teachers-mentors learning as social), Principle 3 (provides collaborative and engaging with the schools brought the individual opportunities), Principle 5 (views teachers as school teams within ANSU closer together. This was active learners) and Principle 6 (Enhances teachers particularly true when groups experienced difficulties. pedagogical skills). While structured and formal meetings provided one avenue for interaction, engagements also became less Firstly, participants spoke about PCLs bringing teach- formal in nature, with mentors meeting ‘over coffee’ to ers/teachers-academics together more, giving them discuss their practice and experiences. High levels of a greater understanding of each other’s worlds and intrinsic motivation were evident amongst the majority supporting the development of positive relationships. of the ANSU team, who were committed to completing Members felt that PCLs “minimize the gap between th the project well and representing their Faculty appro- teachers and academics” (Aleya, Phase 2, 5 Decem- priately. While initially difficulties were experienced ber 2018) and support members to learn to “accept the th that hampered the development of the PCL, these were other” (Sara, Phase 2, 5 December 2018). dealt with, with support from members of the ANSU Secondly, but related to above, “sharing” was a management team. Finally, care was evident in differ- common word used when participants described ent places/people within the group. their understanding of a PCL. This related to sharing Obviously, some areas still warrant additional consid- experiences/knowledge, but also learning from each eration. Engagement in peer observation and shared other and developing shared goals. The idea of more reflection on one’s practice was not strongly evident, democratic relationships, with equal power between even in the final phase of data collection, except for the groups also emerged as an aspect of PCLs. These are student teachers and three mentors. A heavy teaching reflected in the following excerpts: load continues to limit people’s capacity to do so, as PCL means that, it is like a community of people discussed in more detail in the next section. It was sug- of the same age, or interests, or needs as well. Who gested that problems and difficulties were sometimes work together towards a shared goal…I mean, viewed negatively, rather than as a normal part of the they are working towards a goal and they do not change process. deviate, for any reason. (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th Part Three: Inductive Data Analysis December 2018) Four main themes were identified in addition to the eight From my point of view, the purpose of PCL is that principles discussed above. While some overlap exists I am not isolated from the school. The school is within these four themes and the previously presented the real world and we have to be involved and deductive data, these additional themes provide us engaged inside the school community. So we can with a more complete picture of the experiences and share our experiences and knowledge between us development of the PCL. These four themes, agreed on

38 and the school teachers and there is no difference our faculty or culture” (Interview E, phase 2). These between us and them. It is not that we only cultural elements identified by participants aligned have the knowledge. We share. We share in their strongly with Dalin’s framework on school culture social events and lives. (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th (1993), focusing largely on relationships, but also December 2018) structures, strategies (policies), and beliefs & values. Relations refer to the internal human relationships Thirdly, participants viewed PCLs as supporting within the school: “among students, teachers, and lifelong learning, reflective practice and a commitment leaders; in the classrooms; in the playground; and in the to professional development. PCLs encouraged staffroom” (Dalin, 1993, p.9). Structures refer to “how “teachers to complete their professional development, the school is organised…..how tasks are distributed…. not to stop learning, to change their mindsets about and the formal decision-making structure” (ibid, p.8). being a traditional teacher in the school” (Aleya, Phase Strategies are evident in the ways in approaches to th 2, 5 December 2018). teaching and learning, leadership styles and policies. Values refer to “the basic values as they are expressed Finally, participants frequently reverted to talking in ideologies, theories of learning and upbringing, specifically about their teaching and teaching official goals, as well as values translated into daily approaches when asked about their understanding of norms” (ibid, p.8). While presented separately, these PCL. These mentors spoke about using group work and are interdependent dimensions that impact on each active learning approaches within their teaching. This other. ​ would often be the only example they would provide regarding their understanding of a PCL: The Egyptian custom of friendliness, social and polite interactions and a sense of warmth towards others When I entered the project, while I did not know supported the development of strong social relations the name, I realised I already do that. About a year between some mentors, mentors and teachers, and ago I promoted this idea of teaching with the skills mentors and the UL team, as described previously. and a week of ‘teaching with the skills’ in order However, these relationships also resulted in people to promote this type of teaching in the classroom. being slower to criticise others or to challenge opin- (Focus Group with ANSU management team, ions/views they did not necessarily agree with. There Phase 1, 12th October 2018) was a fear that doing so, would be perceived as rude Yeah so, for example, in teaching English, I and was not the norm within Egyptian culture: if a depend mainly on building teams and making team group of people in a given society are not okay with corrections or something like this. Every program giving and receiving feedback, PCL is going to be I taught was like a small community, but I did not a bit difficult to be developed. (Berenike, Phase 2, know I was doing this. Without knowing this is 5th December 2018) PCL. (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th October 2018) Some interviewees described the hierarchical relation- As before, it is interesting to note the strong emphasis ships that can exist within the various institutions. This on teachers within this understanding, rather than could result in more junior members of staff being slow students and student learning. to give their opinion, be reluctant to challenge more senior colleague’s views or decisions being made without Culture as a constraining factor the agreement/involvement of the entire group. While Cultural issues emerged as an important factor in some changes were identified at an individual level, it the development of PCLs. The extensive literature was unclear whether the culture supported members to on school culture and curriculum reform highlights implement deep change, as reflected in the excerpts: how pervasive school culture is and how important a role it plays in change processes (Hinde, 2004). The data revealed that the issues identified by participants focused on the constraining elements of culture. The concept of PCL was not viewed as “an approach in

39 A lot of conflicts emerged between the PCL teach- The importance of beliefs, values and “mentality” ers. A new young teacher was very enthusiastic in successfully developing PCLs emerged from the and joined the PCL, but other teachers did not like data. It was suggested, for example, that some faculty the way she joined the PCL because she is very members, outside of the project team, did not value or young and she wants to make a lot of things. (Fo- believe in the idea of the project. It was suggested that cus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March 2019) some academics viewed the concept of PCL negatively and were resistant to it. This lack of support from other Interviewees described the dominant teacher culture/ colleagues was a challenge for the mentors: relationships as being individualistic in nature. This was true of both schools and the university setting and “This idea is very difficult to support this, between proved initially difficult to overcome. As previously the community of the school, of faculty, because the described, the norm, prior to the project, was that “most different colleagues, from in our department do not of the teachers in our schools in Egypt, the dominant accept the idea of PCL” (Sara, Phase 2, 5th December culture is that the teacher inside the school: himself! 2018). Without the help of his colleagues” (Husani, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). Structures within the faculty, Changing these beliefs and values was viewed as a core particularly regarding the number of teaching hours, aspect of the project and as central to the successful made it more difficult for colleagues to, for example, implementation and development of PCLs. Without th team teach or engage in observation, feedback and such “a change in mentality” (Husani, Phase 2, 5 reflective practice. For example, one mentor explained December 2018), the concept of PCL was not deemed how “there are different obstacles to overcome… as sustainable, irrespective of how many supportive such as the number of teaching hours, the number structures, relationships and strategies are put in place: of courses” (Jamila, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). It It depends first, on the change of attitudes. For was suggested that shared time needs to be scheduled example, if a group of people in a given society within timetables to support shared observations and are not okay with giving and receiving feedback, reflections. This was particularly important within a PCL is going to be a bit difficult to be developed. context where mentors had a significant teaching load: Unless, we have the attitudes towards giving “looking at an idealistic concept like this, we also need and receiving feedback, and cooperation and to have, like, common free time to go and visit one these values. I mean the values of cooperation, another and give feedback” (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th teamwork, collaboration, feedback, and all of these December 2018). things should be changed. Their attitudes towards Strategies, specifically policies regarding promotion these values should be changed at the beginning. and advancement, continued to support individualism And everything is going to be okay after that. Of and competitiveness and had potential to demotivate course, follow up on all of the practical stuff or mentors from engaging in collaborative projects, as the administrative stuff, but the starting point or reflected in the excerpt below: the core point for me is the change of attitude. (Berenike, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) The culture within our department makes individ- ual, not collaborative. This idea of teamwork in Differences in culture between the Egyptian and Irish contexts also created some tensions between ANSU and research is absent. When we try to make collab- their European partners (UL) in the early stages of the orative research, we take a lower credit. To make project. Being new to the Egyptian context, the UL team a lecturer we must make 7 individual research took time to adjust to specifics of the Egyptian culture. projects. If we make collaborative research with Having not worked in Egyptian education settings prior our colleagues we must make individual research to the project, the UL team underestimated the extent to provide balance for this one. (Focus Group 1, to which the differing cultures between universities and Phase 3, 13th March 2019) schools would affect the project. This initially hampered relations between the two teams. Cultural differences were explored and identified by both teams in year two of the project, which improved the situation.

40 The varying journey of PCLs: ‘Its messy.’ In the early stages of the project, the “concept was th While the chart presented in Figure 1, by Wenger not very clear” (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5 December (1998), shows the typical progression of a community, 2018) and members were coming to terms with it is acknowledged that PCLs can be experienced in “understanding the project, so many tasks needed time a variety of ways. This is supported by the data in to understand the whole thing and we were feeling the current study, which showed that the trajectory overwhelmed. We are all engaged in so many things” th or journey of PCLs vary significantly. This emerged (Timelines talk, Phase 2, 6 December 2018). during the Timeline activity and related discussion, A number of factors supported the ANSU team in that took place during phase 2 of the study. In terms of overcoming this ‘plateau’ to begin developing a PCL. the timelines, the focus will be placed on the timeline Firstly, three of the four ANSU member timelines relating to the FoE PCL, not the school. However, it identify travel and “travelling together to other is important to note that three of the four timelines countries and universities” (Timelines Talk, Phase completed by ANSU mentors (working in school 2, 6th December 2018) as a unifying and supportive teams), placed the school PCL as more developed and factor. This was the first time for some mentors to higher than the FoE PCL. travel outside of Egypt and this ‘adventure’ helped in The timelines show varied experiences of developing the development of relationships. PCLs and it was acknowledged that this process “is Secondly, as the project developed, members gained th messy” (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14 May 2019). On a better understanding of what the concepts entailed. initially being involved in the project, the ANSU team The ‘living out’ of a PCL helped to develop mentorsʼ was “so happy”. The group “was very enthusiastic understanding. For example: about being involved in an international project” (Timeline talk, phase 2, 6th December 2018). Once the In the second stage, the relationship between us initial excitement of the project wore off and the reality and the teachers made the concept of the PCL of the workload became clear, it was suggested that clearer. Then at another stage, the concept became the Faculty PCL experienced a “plateau’’ (Timeline more obvious among us as a project team and the talk, Phase 2, 6th December 2018). As a result, the relationships that developed between us. (Mam- development of the PCL was “slow” (Timeline talk, douh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) Phase 2). This was identified as being due to: Engaging in the related project workshops facilitated 1. A lack of clear vision/understanding of what by the University of Limerick and other partners helped the project was about/concepts underpinning the to “clear the fog” (Focus Group with mentors, phase 1, project 29th April 2018) in terms of members understanding of the concepts: 2. Lack of clear understanding regarding specific roles and responsibilities within the “During UL’s last visit, you shared your experiences, management team/team and this made it more and more clear” (Mamdouh, Phase 2, 5th December 2018). 3. Lack of previous experience engaging in projects of this nature Thirdly, as previously discussed, with the support of the American University in Cairo (AUC), more structured 4. Heavy workload both within and external to team meetings were introduced in the faculty PCL and the project also meetings with teachers became more organised 5. Lack of sufficient supportive structures i.e. and frequent. As a result of the above measures: meetings Maybe, in the beginning, things were not that 6. Some mentors not sufficiently engaging in clear, but now everything has a periodical time. the project, causing frustration amongst other For example, the meetings, the reports. The vision, members. it is clearer now for all of us. It developed a lot

41 compared to the beginning of the project. (Bereni- However, once the “face-to-face” element ends, “we ke, Phase 2, 5th December 2018) lose it. It cannot be sustained from afar”. This results in “a big dip….as it can be a long time until we see them Finally, as previously discussed, two mentors who did face-to-face again.” not engage sufficiently in the project were replaced, with new members integrated into the project team. Each subsequent and additional visit helped to bring the group closer together meaning that “it is easier to In comparison to this, the development of the ANSU- make the peak again in the next visit because you have UL PCL, as evident in the timeline in Figure 5 below, that previous experience” (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, was deemed as consisting of “peaks and troughs” (UL 14th May 2019). However, “there still is a dip when we th Focus Group, Phase 3, 14 May 2019). The peaks leave”. When attempting to support the development occurred “when we [UL team] are there, which is always of a PCL from a far, “you have to rely on other things a really positive experience with great interactions” other than face-to-face and it can be difficult to develop th (UL Focus Group, Phase 3, 14 May 2019). The UL and sustain this relationship over Skype or online” (UL team believed that “when we go, and we all meet that’s Focus Group, Phase 3, 14th May 2019). The use of when it comes alive and becomes engaging. They technology in supporting the development of a PCL is really engage with us”. Similarly, another member of discussed in more detail in section four below. the UL team believed that “the link and relationship we have with them when we are there, is very powerful.”

Figure 4. ANSU mentors (group 1) timeline on the development of their PCL

42 Figure 5. ANSU mentors (group 2 and 3) timeline on the development of their PCL

Figure 6. ANSU mentors (group 4) timeline on the development of their PCL

43 Figure 7. Timeline on the development of the ANSU-UL PCL The use of supportive technology in developing This supportive technology appeared to be positive a PCL when combined with frequent face to face interactions, All of the ANSU mentor groups relied on technology in as was possible within the mentor/school relationships. some way to interact and engage with teachers outside of the scheduled school visits. Mentors, for example, Such supportive technology was viewed as less “made a Facebook site to share our experiences with effective between the ANSU-UL group who would each other” (Focus Group 1, Phase 3, 13th March have face-to-face interactions three or four times 2019) and “there is a WhatsApp group, where we per year. It emerged from the UL focus group that share any data/ideas” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th the UL team “struggled to develop and maintain that March 2019). Mentors viewed this positively as they relationship over Skype or online…..It is very hard felt that “the WhatsApp group between us and teachers to do that via email or Skype or WhatsApp. …….it is was very helpful because it was easy to share a lot really only when we are in the presence of the mentors of things through it. It was also a good way to keep that it works” (Phase 3, 14th May 2019). communication in those times we were not able to visit the school” (Focus Group 2, Phase 3, 13th March 2019). WhatsApp groups were used to arrange meetings, share activities and social events with teachers and also “when working on something together like PowerPoint Presentations” (Jamila, Phase 2, 5th December 2018).

44 Section Five: Discussion This form of peer mentoring (Colvin & Ashman, 2010) resulted in high levels of trust amongst some members The findings are discussed in relation to the three re- of the team, later leading to greater levels of shared search questions previously set out in the methodology. reflection and peer observation (as discussed under research question 2 below). 1) How does the school-university partnership enhance the development of While problems were shared and discussed within PCLs at the university level? smaller school teams, mentors believed these The findings indicate that the partnership impacted on difficulties were viewed negatively by some members the mentors’ and the ANSU PCL in two main ways. of the ANSU management team, rather than as a normal and natural part of any change. This had the Engaging with teachers and schools provided the potential to limit the development of a whole team mentors with additional stories they could draw on PCL, as mentors sometimes felt more supported by when teaching student teachers. The exposure to the these subgroups than the larger team. These resulted in ‘real-life’ practices of schools emerged as a pedagogical a situation where mentors turned to their school team tool that the mentors were keen to build into their for support (‘their family’) rather than to the larger own teaching. Perhaps by connecting their content to PCL (‘the meeting team’). the teachers’ practices in schools, the mentors, who had limited school-based experience, gained greater 2) How has the PCL impacted on the ‘practitioner knowledge’, a greater understanding of transformation of professional learning the context of schools and, perhaps through this, even practice at the university level? greater legitimacy in their role as teacher educators. As we examine how this PCL developed and attempt This reinforces the potential capacity of PCLs where to understand its impact on the professional learning learning can become a ‘multi-directional process’ practice of faculty at the university level it is important whereby skills and knowledge gained by each of the to remember that professional communities do not groups can be shared to enhance everyone’s practice just happen. Communities grow and develop over (Chambers, 2009, p.19). This multi-directional time as members work through the various stages of learning is also evident when the teachers in the schools community development (Wenger, 1999). These ANSU demonstrate new skills and strategies and the mentor’s members spent two years navigating first the potential knowledge and teaching skills are enhanced through stage (members in the same setting with no shared working closely with the teachers in the schools. practice) and then the coalescing stage (members coming together recognising their joint potential) According to Fullan (2001), problems are our friends before they became actively engaged as a community and if acknowledged, accepted and explored, problems striving toward shared goals. We explore four themes can become an important learning experience for teams that emerged to reflect how the PCL impacted on the during change processes. The problems and difficulties transformation of professional learning practice within mentors experienced in schools had both a positive and ANSU. negative impact on the FoE PCL. These difficulties had the effect of bringing the mentors together to support A) Willingness to overcome fear, to share and advise each other on possible ways they could one’s practice more and to observe one proceed with their school. In some instances, mentors another’s teaching practices began to mentor each other with the notion of a critical We know that change is highly personal and emotive, friend emerging; largely through offering advice, and positioning people in a place of vulnerability (Spillane playing a supportive role. Team members became able et al., 2002; Zembylas et al., 2005). Fear and fear of to move from one problem and solution to another change can limit a person’s engagement in change while providing support and encouragement. They processes. As ANSU team members developed trust, could practice being mentors to their colleagues within engaged collectively in solving problems, and became a safe and comfortable environment that they could more supportive of one another, we saw a reduction then draw on when mentoring teachers in schools. in resistance and the level of fear attached to allowing

45 others into their classrooms to provide feedback paraphrase Eisner (1992), the new teacher changes and support. As members invited colleagues into when placed back in the old school context. Therefore, their teaching settings the sharing of knowledge and the relationship between the university and their best practice emerged as an important feature of the partner schools need to continue and further develop community. Observation of teaching and subsequent over the coming years to ensure that the school context discussion and feedback became an important these student teachers begin their teaching careers in is pedagogical approach valued by a few mentors. supportive of their current beliefs and practices. Consideration needs to be given to how these mentors can be supported to continue this practice, and how C) Teaching became more democratic and other colleagues can be supported to take this step. student-centred A more learner-centered approach to teaching and B) Practicum students experience with the learning became the norm for some mentors as they potential knock-on effect on teachers in gained confidence in their own teaching allowing schools them to let go of some of the classroom control which Initially, the university culture was described as shifted the roles of teacher and student. Teachers individualistic and competitive, allowing for limited began to share the role of teaching with learners so collaborative opportunities. One attempt to initiate that the co-construction of knowledge evolved. This a cultural shift was the strong emphasis placed on active and student-centred environment was seen at embedding the concepts of PCL into student teachers› the university level as well as in the classrooms of experiences in the FoE and while on school placement. the student teachers and potentially some teachers. As the project progressed, the notion of community Changing oneʼs practice and making oneʼs classrooms emerged with student teachers at the centre of this work. more student-centered was the most common change We saw members of the PCL intentionally planning for mentors made to their practice and was, at times, the and encouraging collaborative opportunities within main way mentors understood PCLs. This is discussed their classroom. Interactions among teachers and again under research question three below. students became less formal and learning experiences became more democratic. Students engaged in D) Reflective practice became more reflective learning, participated in peer and self- embedded in practice assessment and took more ownership of their own As the project concluded, reflection and reflective learning. It was evident in phase two that student practices were evident. Mentors began to reflect on teachers were regularly engaging in team-teaching their practice more, albeit informally. This reflection with peer observation, feedback, and shared reflection usually took place following mentors own teaching. being a normal part of their practice. The practice of In a small number of cases, this reflection formed enculturating student teachers into the concept of part of the observation-feedback-shared-reflection communities of practice is important as it is envisioned taking place with colleagues, and during interactions that these student teachers will enact these practices in with student teachers. Reflective practice, in a schools once qualified. However, it should be noted variety of forms, became an important aspect of the that ‘learning as participation’ (Lave and Wenger, professional development of mentors and also how 1991, Maynard, 2001) in the form of communities may student teachers understood the teaching profession. not represent the complex relationship between newly These reflective interactions included face-to-face qualified teachers, experienced teachers in schools and discussions, emails and through a well-developed the existing school culture. Numerous studies have social media platform. The outcome of this form of highlighted how newly qualified teachers become group reflection (Lierberman & Miller, 2008) led to socialized into the norms and culture of a school, a number of the mentors addressing changes needed oftentimes compromising their own philosophy and in their own practices with the schools, but also in practices to adapt to the school norms (Day, 1999). their approach to teaching and learning. The current Newly qualified teachers can often ‘compromise and approaches to reflection could be deemed as being adapt to school culture…unconsciously’ (ibid). To dialogical and consideration could be given to how

46 greater levels of critical reflection, that challenges and power of the community) but also in their practices questions hegemonic assumptions and power relations (i.e. teaching approaches, peer observation, and (Brookfield, 1995), can be supported and fostered reflective practice). This is potentially the first step within the group. At present, such forms of discussion in implementing cultural change and with continued do not appear to be sufficiently supported within the support; the beliefs and behaviours of these subgroups institution. may permeate to other faculty members. Consideration needs to be given to how subgroups can be continually 3) What are some of the tensions between supported at an institutional and faculty level in this beliefs/values and practice? regard and what additional supportive structures are The tensions between beliefs and practices were evident required to ensure the sustainability of these PCLs. in two main ways – 1) from a cultural perspective and As suggested by participants in this study, shared 2) from a changed perspective. scheduled time, within timetables, would support greater collaboration and may be one way to continue The literature tells us that school/institution culture to support the group. is pervasive (Hinde, 2004) and influences, amongst other things, students learning and achievement, Cultural differences initially occurred between the teaching approaches and teacher and student wellbeing ANSU management team and UL’s management team. (MacNeil, Prater & Busch, 2009). Culture impacts This potentially originated from a lack of understanding everyone within an organisation and can support or of the cultural context of Egypt on the part of the UL hamper a person’s ability to implement change (Zhu, team. Following a short process of mediation, these Devos, & Tondeur, 2014). Cultures supportive of differences were addressed. This may identify the need change, in line with the principles of PCLs, provide to explicitly address cultural differences at the start of collaborative opportunities, provides opportunities such cross country/cultural projects in the future. for teacher and student perspectives (DeRoiste, Kelly, Molcho, Gavin, & NicGabhainn, 2012) and We can also view these tensions from a changed support challenging discussions (Fullan, 2001). Such perspective. We know that the change process is environments are ‘caring’ communities (Hargreaves complex and multifaceted (Davis 2003; Handal & & Giles, 2003; Noddings, 2005) with democratic Herrington 2003). ‘Deep’ lasting change at the level approaches to leadership (Cunliffe & Erikson, 2011). of beliefs and values is extremely difficult to achieve (Fullan, 2001). From viewing the data, three main Tensions emerged between the principles underpinning points stand out. Firstly, while mentors acknowledged PCLs and the dominant culture within ANSU, that change was ‘slow’, they also experienced which was initially described as individualistic and frustration when change did not happen quickly. There competitive. Many participants mentioned the newness was an assumption that teachers, for example, would of the PCL concept to their institution and schools. automatically buy into the concept of PCL and begin Mentors had heavy teaching loads and large class sizes, changing their practices once engaged in the project. which limited their ability to team-teach, to observe The reality of the speed at which change occurs, classes and to integrate student-centered approaches. versus the assumptions of mentors regarding the While some change occurred in this regard, as change process, may have contributed to the ‘plateau’ outlined above, these dominant structures and attitudes participants experienced early in the project. continued to persist and potentially limit the extent to which the mentors could fully engage in the PCL. The related research literature tells us that people respond to change by changing as little as possible Some movements did emerge in this regard, however, (Fullan, 2001). When faced with change, people can it is worth revisiting. Subgroups, potentially aligning oversimplify what is expected (‘I’m already doing with Hargreaves et al. (1995) notion of a Balkinised that’) or partially implement it by focusing on the aspect teacher culture, showed signs of cultural change. of the change that is easiest and most align with their This was evident at the level of beliefs and values current practice (Fullan, 2001). As is the norm with (i.e. openness to the concept of PCL, believing in the change processes, evidence of both of these emerged

47 in the current study. Participants frequently viewed part of the change process. Fullan (2001) further the concept of PCLs as related mainly (or solely) to suggests that one should be more concerned if no teaching approaches and this was the first and main problems occur. A potential tension emerged in relation way in which they changed their practice. While this to this. As previously discussed, problems were a is a positive step, it means that other core aspects of unifying force amongst some teams and had the impact a PCL may have received less attention. As change is of bringing them together. However, mentors believed such an emotional process, it is understandable then that ‘problems’ were sometimes seen as a negative thing that an individual’s classroom, where they are the only by some members of the ANSU management team teacher, is potentially a safe way to begin implementing and they did not always feel supported in discussing changes into one’s practice. The issue is to consider their issues within the wider project team. Potential how this can be extended out to a greater extent to other opportunities may have been lost then in sharing and colleagues and to include the more uncomfortable and learning from the various difficulties experienced in challenging aspects of PCLs such as peer observations forming PCLs. Consideration needs to be given to how and critical discussions. a culture that supports the sharing and discussing of problems, allowing members to make mistakes, can be As outlined above, when implementing change, harnessed and developed more. ‘problems are our friends’ (Fullan, 2001), meaning that problems are inevitable and an important and necessary

48 References Anderson, G., & Arsenault, N. (1999). Fundamentals of educational research. London: Falmer Press. Angrosino, M.V. (2008). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Bell, J. (1993). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science (2nd ed.). Buckingham, PA: Open University Press. Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19. Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(90), 9-18. doi:10.1002/ace.16 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brookfield, S. (1995).Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chambers, F. C. (2009). Irish physical education teacher education students and their professional learning: The teaching practice experience. Loughborough University. Cohen, L., Manion, L., &Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RouledgeFalmer. Corcoran, P. B., Walker, K. E., & Wals, A. E. J. (2004). Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: A critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 7-21. Cornbleth, C. (1992). Looking at part 2 of the handbook: How the curriculum is shaped. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(1), 10-15. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cronbach, L.J. (1981). Towards reform of programme evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Davis, K. S. (2003). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87 (1): 3–30.

Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press. Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act in sociology. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

49 DeLYSER, D. (2001). Do you really live here? Thoughts on insider research. Geographical Review, 91(1-2), 441-453. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2001.tb00500.x

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, DeRoiste, A., Kelly, M. Molcho, A. Gavin, & NicGabhainn, S. (2012). Is school participation good for children? Associations with health and wellbeing. Health Education, 112(2), 88-104. Eisner, E. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 13(4), 610-27 Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/fereday.pdf. Fielding, N.G., & Fielding, J.L. (1986). Linking data. London: Sage Publications. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ bdj.2008.192 Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 382–391. doi:10.1080/13540600210000051 2 Patton, K., & Parker, M. (2017). Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture of collaboration, Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 351-360. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.013 Handal, B., & A. Herrington. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15 (1): 59–69. Hargreaves, A. Y., & Giles, C. (2003). The knowledge society school: An endengered entity. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity (pp. 98-124). Nueva York: Teachers College Press. Hinde, E. R. (2004). School culture and change: An examination of the effects of school culture on the process of change. Essays in Education [On-line]. Available: http://www. usca.edu/essays/vol12winter2004.html Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school based research. London:Routledge. Hyett N, Kenny A., & Dickson-Swift V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9(23606). http:// dx.doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.236 Jackson, K.F. (2013). Participatory diagramming in social work research: Utilizing visual timelines to interpret the complexities of the lived multiracial experience. Qualitative Social Work, 12(4), 414-4323 Janet W. C., & Marinda A. (2010). Role risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relationships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121-134. doi: 10.1080/13611261003678879

50 Joffe H. (2011). Thematic analysis. In D. Harper, A. R. Thompson, (Eds.), Qualitative methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (pp. 209-223). Chichester: Wiley. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 4-26. Leung PP, Yu (2010). Autobiographical timeline: A narrative and life story approach in understanding meaning- making in cancer patients. Illness, Crisis and Loss No. 18(2):111–127. Liberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. Teachers College Press, New York MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 73–84. doi:10.1080/13603120701576241. Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25. doi:10.1177/1468794106058866 Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. Education and Debate, 311, 109-112. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Noddings, N. (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York, NY: Teacher College press. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris: OECD. O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process.The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/ortlipp.pdf Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing research: Principles, process and issues. London: Macmillan Patricia, I. F., & Lawrence, R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 20(9): 1408-1416. Patton, K., Parker, M., & Pratt, E. (2013). Meaningful learning in professional development: Teaching without telling. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32, 441-459. Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Richie, J. (2003). The application of qualitative methods to social research. In J. Richie,. and J. Lewis. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, (pp. 24-46). London: Sage Publication Sapsford, R., & Jupp, V. (1996). Data collection and analysis. London: Sage Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

51 Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Issues raised by focus groups. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352. Smith, K., & Biley F. (1997). Understanding grounded theory: Principles and evaluation. Nurse Researcher, 4(3), 17-30. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publication. Stake, R. (1998). Case studies. In, N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The qualitative debate. research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from http:// www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualmeth.php. Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 3, 68-70. Trisha, M. (2001). The student-teacher and the school community of practice: A consideration of ‘learning as participation’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1), 39-52. doi: 10.1080/03057640123915 Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2006). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. London: Sage Publications Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2009). How to do better case studies. London: Sage Publications. Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2005). Modeling teacher empowerment: The role of job satisfaction. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 11(5), 433- 459. Zhu, C., Devos, G., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Examining school culture in Flemish and Chinese primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4) 557575.

52 Bibliography Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2005). Introduction. In R. K. Yin (Ed.), Introducing the world of education: A case study reader (pp. xiii-xxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53 Appendices

Appendix 1. Phase 1: Semi-structured interview with ANSU management • What is your own background/areas of experience (teaching/research)/ previous experience of PCL • How did you get involved in the project? • What is your role in the project? Has this role changed? If so, how? • What do you think the purpose of the project is? • What does PCL mean to you? How has your understanding of this changed since beginning the project? • What supports are present for the project? Impact of these • What is working well within the group/project? Why are these working well? Evidence of this? • To what extent does the group have a shared vision? How • Did this form? When? If not, why not? • Level of trust within the group? • What could be improved? How could these be improved? • How open are people in the FoE to the project/concept of PCL? Why is this the case? • What changes have occurred to your practice/beliefs since starting the project? Why do you think these have changed? What changes do you think has happened to your colleagues? • New Question: What motivates people within the group do you think? How is this evident? What differences exist in relation to how people are motivated? What impact does this have on the project? • Anything else that you wished I asked you that I haven’t or that you want to say?

54 Appendix 2. Phase 2: Semi-structured interviews questions with mentors

What is your own background/areas of experience (teaching/research)/ previous experience of PCL How did you get involved in the project? What is your role in the project? Has this role changed? If so, how? What do you think the purpose of the project is? What does PCL mean to you? How has your understanding of this changed since beginning the project? What supports are present for the project? Impact of these What is working well within the group/project? Why are these working well? Evidence of this? To what extent does the group have a shared vision? How did this form? When? If not, why not? Level of trust within the group? What could be improved? How could these be improved? How open are people in the FoE to the project/concept of PCL? Why is this the case? What changes have occurred to your practice/beliefs since starting the project? Why do you think these have changed? What changes do you think has happened to your colleagues? New Question: What motivates people within the group do you think? How is this evident? What differences exist in relation to how people are motivated? What impact does this have on the project? Anything else that you wished I asked you that I haven’t or that you want to say?

55 Appendix 3. Phase 3: Prompts for Focus group with mentors (questions asked in terms of school and faculty PCL. • Prompt 1: development of PCL since last interview

• Prompt 2: Strengths of PCL. Why?

• Prompt 3: Weaknesses. Why?

• Prompt 4: areas for improvement/difficulties

• Prompt 5: supports

• Prompt 6: which of the principles guiding PCLs are most and least evident within your PCL. Why?

56 Appendix 4. Phase 4: Focus group with UL team members UL team as a PCL Describe your perceptions of the four of us as a PCL How did this community develop? What are the key features of this community? What have been the challenges in developing into a community? Can you describe different roles that members of the community have played? How would you describe the strengths of this community? The weaknesses? How would you see this community moving forward, and for what purpose? UL/ASU team as a PCL Describe your perceptions of UL/ASU as a PCL How has this community developed? What are the key features of this community? What have been the challenges in developing into a community? Can you describe different roles that members of the community have played? How would you describe the strengths of this community? The weaknesses? How would you see this community moving forward, and for what purpose?

57

Project number: 573660-EPP-1-2016-EG-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP Project title: School-University Partnership for Peer Communities of Learners

(SUP4PCL)

Project website: SUP4PCL.aucegypt.edu

The SUP4PCL Partnership: Foundational Principles The Partnership is about Change and Transformation The Partnership is a Collaborative and Collegial One The Partnership Constitutes a Community of Learners The Partnership is a First Step in Long Lasting Relationships and Friendships The Partnership Respects Diversity, Multiculturalism and Internationalism