School development through team learning: exploring the potential of teams in a learning community Open Access

School organizations face challenges because of globalization, the changing nature of information and evolving technologies. Moreover, there are increasing global expectations to promote the role of learning and collaboration among teachers within school communities to address a wide range of challenges, including school development, teacher professionalism and teaching and learning (Hargreaves, 2019; Honingh & Hooge, 2014). Learning and team-based work are central to employees’ responsibilities in school organizations and are considered vital for the success of a learning school (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, & Dutton, 2012). Professional learning is often unpredictable and takes place on multiple levels within the school community (Korthagen, 2017). Further research is required to understand and identify the conditions that support effective learning across various levels of the school community.

Amid increasing interest in collaborative cultures, this study explores the relationship between school community development and teachers’ team learning. Thus, this study contributes additional understanding into the timely and pressing topic of learning community development by offering further insights into teacher collaboration and team learning. These insights are derived from a school development process that was conducted in close collaboration with the entire school community. This process aimed to merge a lower secondary and a primary school in one Finnish municipality into a single unified comprehensive school. School development and the learning of its members were viewed as parallel processes, considered from the perspectives of individuals, teams and the organization. As teacher collaboration plays a central role in supporting school development by facilitating educational innovations (Bouwmans, Runhaar, Wesselink, & Mulder, 2017), there is a need for a better understanding of how different forms of collaboration shape teachers’ learning and development (de Jong, Meirink, & Admiraal, 2019).

This paper addresses the following research questions:

Over the past few decades, educators and school leaders have increasingly recognized the importance of teachers’ professional learning and development within a school community, as well as the value of collaboration to support the learning of all community members (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2016; Senge et al., 2012). Similarly, the significance of teams at the heart of modern organizations and as hubs for various activities has seen a dramatic increase in recent decades (Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2010; Rupčić, 2022). The idea of a learning organization development has also become a widely recognized and firmly established concept (Kools & Stoll, 2016). There is a broad understanding that a key characteristic of a learning organization is that its members not only interact and collaborate but also learn from each other at individual, team and organizational levels (Arrow & Cook, 2007; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Senge, 2006; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015). Although learning is traditionally viewed as an individual activity, it is increasingly recognized as a group and organizational trait. For teams, learning outcomes can be defined as increased knowledge, capacity and performance. These outcomes contribute to the achievement of the team’s goals (Arrow & Cook, 2007).

To renew teaching and learning and develop innovative ideas, educational communities must be encouraged and supported in enhancing interactions, discussions, dialogues and team learning among their members (Senge et al., 2012). The promotion of team learning and collaboration within educational institutions has been demonstrated to expand opportunities for continual learning and collaborative work cultures in everyday life (Day, 1999; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016). Furthermore, the implementation of team learning initiatives has been shown to develop processes that “create and sustain innovation” (Witherspoon, 2022, p. 32). Bouwmans et al. (2017) noted that promoting teachers’ role in decision-making and their opportunities for co-innovation may also enhance team learning. In contrast, traditional models of teachers’ professional learning and development are grounded on the assumption that the primary objective of professional development is to provide teachers with the knowledge of the practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) noted that a learning community represents a shift away from the more conventional and traditional model of teachers’ professional development. Recent research has indicated the importance of external facilitation, support and collaboration with institutions such as universities in promoting teachers’ professional learning and development (e.g. de Jong, Meirink, & Admiraal, 2021; Hauge & Wan, 2019; Tarnanen, Kostiainen, Kaukonen, Martin, & Toikka, 2021). Teachers’ professional development programs should also place greater emphasis on strengthening teachers’ leadership skills (Meirink et al., 2020), recognizing the critical role of leaders in team-based collaboration and school development.

As organizations and communities explore collective learning approaches, the concept of team learning has been defined in numerous ways (Rebelo, Lourenço, & Dimas, 2019). Team learning is a discipline that unfolds across multiple levels within an organization, and within the context of a school community, it encompasses learning at the organizational, teacher and classroom levels (Decuyper et al., 2010; Senge et al., 2012). Team learning enhances a community’s ability to learn through recognizing the strength of collective thinking (Senge et al., 2012). According to Traylor, Tannenbaum, Thomas, & Salas (2023), team learning, adaptation and resilience are closely related to a range of factors, including team conditions, capabilities, cooperation, cognition, coordination, communication and coaching. Team learning processes include “co-construction, constructive conflict, storage, retrieval, team activity, team reflexivity and boundary crossing” (Decuyper et al., 2010, p. 116).

Team learning is a process of sharing, enhancing and combining knowledge within teams, as well as collaboration, which can lead to changes in how ideas and innovations are shared among teachers and in teachers’ knowledge (Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin, 2001; Boak, 2014). Teacher teams within schools are not only important units for work and development but also important spaces for both individual and organizational learning and development and catalysts for innovations within a school community (e.g. Bouwmans et al., 2017; Senge et al., 2012; Witherspoon, 2022), which may help teachers meet their students’ needs more effectively (Forte & Flores, 2014).

Teacher collaboration has traditionally focused on sharing and exchanging experiences and ideas or formal and short-term activities (Forte & Flores, 2014), as more in-depth collaboration, characterized by higher levels of interdependence, has been less common (Vangrieken et al., 2015). By contrast, team learning is an ongoing process involving reflection and team activities such as questioning, experimentation, providing feedback and evaluating the outcomes of educational initiatives (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson, Dillon, & Roloff, 2007). This involves team members working together to share knowledge and improve performance (Decuyper et al., 2010). Thus, it enhances the adaptability of both employees and organizations and leads to enhanced performance (Bell, Kozlowski, & Blawath, 2012).

Despite the varied and developing concepts of team learning, learning communities based on collaborative work provide a way to build lasting changes in school communities and establish school reforms (Stoll, Bolam, & McMahon, 2006). Improving schools as learning communities is an iterative process. Through dialogue and discussions, community members form an understanding of the current and future states of the school community. This shapes a shared vision and creates structures that support teams and collaboration (e.g. Senge et al., 2012; Toikka & Tarnanen, 2024). Bouwmans et al. (2017) discovered that as teachers feel a stronger sense of belonging within a team, their contributions increase. Moreover, various forms of team models have been found to promote teachers’ psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Scholars have also emphasized the social and interpersonal processes of team learning alongside cognitive aspects (Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006). Involving teachers in school decision-making processes advances their professionalism, increases their commitment to decision-making and promotes communication.

While shared decision-making has many long-term benefits, the process of attaining this may be challenging, as attitudes and behaviors require time to change (Harris, 2007). Despite prior research supporting the idea that collaboration is a best practice for school development, to avoid conflicts, many teachers still tend to work in isolation (Uline et al., 2003). It is essential to support the removal of structural barriers that may limit collaboration and innovation in schools and to promote changes that create more flexible environments that promote shared practices and reduce teacher isolation. For example, by fostering regular, open and collegial dialogue and experimentation, schools can continue to move toward more collaborative teaching cultures (Kools & Stoll, 2016).

Initiatives to enhance team learning should aim to create an atmosphere where employees feel at ease expressing their thoughts and ideas, not to avoid disagreement (Puente-Palacios & de Jesus Barouh, 2021) or constructive conflict (e.g. Decuyper et al., 2010; O’Neill & McLarnon, 2018; Uline, Tschannen-Moran, & Perez, 2003; Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Organizations have increased cross-boundary teaming with the objective of improving collaboration across the boundaries of their knowledge with the intention of broadening the range of perspectives (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). According to Senge et al. (2012), creative tension is essential for driving innovation and progress within teams. Creative tension is more about leveraging conceptual gaps between the vision and current reality to drive innovation and change (Senge et al., 2012), whereas constructive conflict involves resolving disagreements in a way that enhances decision-making and member relationships and group functioning (Uline et al., 2003).

In this study, the development of a unified, comprehensive school community was planned and implemented through an extensive partnership between the school and university-based researchers. In the development project, school community development teams were established to support the school’s change toward a unified comprehensive school with a community of approximately 60 adults and 400 pupils.

This study explored team learning within the context of broader learning community development. Teachers retained autonomy and had the option of working independently in their classrooms. However, they could also embrace interdependence by participating in community development work within interdisciplinary development teams. They were required to collaborate with various teachers and staff members in a new form of boundary-crossing collaboration. Through boundary crossing in teams, schools can use a variety of strengths and perspectives among staff members to collaborate effectively on common goals and address complex issues. Boundary crossing can occur within individual schools and between schools and institutions. In this study, for example, it also occurred between the university and the participating school, which allowed institutions to familiarize themselves with each other’s practices and learn from them (Akkerman & Bruining, 2016).

The development project with the school lasted for almost two academic years (2018–2019), from the first contact with the local municipal educational administration and ending with a closing meeting with school staff in fall 2019. The main phases of the long-term collaboration between researchers and school staff are illustrated in Figure 1. The data for this study were collected at the end of the project (see “Final interviews with the team leaders and principals” in Figure 1).

As researchers of this project, we had two roles: we conducted the study and actively participated in the development process of the school community as collaborators and facilitators. This dual role is typical in development research, as researchers facilitate learning, participate in discussions, introduce new knowledge and move away from the position of guiding expert (Kuula-Luumi, 1999). According to Mezirow (1996), this role requires an ethical commitment to acting as a partner and guiding the learning process. To avoid confusion about our roles, it was important to inform the school staff which meetings served research interests (e.g. interviews and follow-up surveys) and when we were facilitating or observing teams’ activities.

The basic education offered by comprehensive schools in Finland is both compulsory and free of charge. The education system in Finland has been systematically developed toward the ideals of social equality. At the current stage, the system boasts a well-established framework for unified basic education, reflected in the legislation and the national core curriculum (Basic Education Act, 1998; Finnish National Board of Education, 2014; Halinen & Pietilä, 2005). Since the introduction of Finland’s current national core curriculum for basic education in 2016, learning-community development has been central to school development in Finland (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014). Basic education typically spans nine years, usually from ages 7–16, traditionally structured in separate primary school (1–6) and lower secondary school (7–9) grades. While the legislation and the national core curriculum provide the framework for a unified comprehensive education, many schools continue to operate in separate structures. However, there is a growing interest in Finland toward developing unified comprehensive schools, and 22% of comprehensive schools in the country now follow this unified model. The percentage of such schools has increased by 10% over the past decade (Statistics in Finland, 2020). These schools comprise both primary and lower secondary grades of basic education, spanning from grades 1–9.

The data for this study were collected through interviews conducted with development team leader teachers (consisting of five primary, subject-specific or special education teachers) and two school principals (one responsible for the primary school and the other for the lower secondary school). The interviews were conducted at the conclusion of a collaborative, research-based project (see Figure 1).

The ethical principles outlined by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (2019, 2023) were followed in this study. The importance of ethics throughout the research was highlighted. Participation was fully voluntary. Only teachers and principals who gave active consent at the beginning of the university-school development project took part in the research. However, based on the school’s decision, the entire staff participated in the school development project. Before team leaders and principals gave their consent, participants were given complete information about the study’s purpose, the steps involved and their rights. Participants were clearly told that they could leave the study at any moment if they wanted. Participants received detailed information and had enough chance to ask questions before they agreed to participate.

The team leaders and principals were selected as the interviewees in this study because they also formed the school’s management team. The study included interviews with five out of six teacher team leaders and two comprehensive school principals from the participating school community. The aim of the interviews was to explore a more comprehensive picture of the school community’s development within the development teams. The interviews comprised three themes:

1. professional learning and development;

2. school community and the school’s shared vision; and

3. collaboration and development teams.

Each interview lasted from 41 to 65 min.

The formation of the school’s development teams was guided by initial interviews and workshops, which aimed to address the school’s development needs. These development teams were thematic, and the themes of the teams were carefully crafted to support the school’s transition into a unified school. The first team focused on creating a collaborative culture and an inclusive school for all learners by building and developing support for learning and school attendance. The second team worked on establishing common rules for the future school and organizing activities and events designed to promote the well-being of both staff and students in the school community. The third team was tasked with exploring and developing practices such as co-teaching and interdisciplinary learning within the new school.

Each development team was led by two team leaders who worked in parallel; however, the teams had the flexibility to determine how closely they worked as a team and how often they were divided into smaller groups to further develop themes that emerged from the discussions. On average, the development teams met every two weeks within the time allocated to them while adjusting to other school activities and meetings, such as staff and management team meetings. The team activities comprised reviewing the current state and functioning of the school, setting common development objectives, discussing the future school, planning and implementing various experiments and conducting various tasks assigned by the school management. Furthermore, the team activities were integrated with the school’s management, as the team leaders constituted a part of the management team, along with the school principal. This management team convened to discuss and monitor the school’s progress. Another role of the management team was to support the development teams’ work.

A qualitative thematic analysis of the collected data was conducted using the approach outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006, 2022). This analysis aimed to organize the fragmented interview data and develop a conceptual understanding of team learning within the school community by identifying and analyzing key themes. This approach aimed to provide a broader context and give meaning to the findings (Oplatka, 2021; Puusa, 2020; Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018). The thematic analysis focused primarily on interview themes 1 and 3, which addressed professional development and collaboration from the perspective of development teams.

The analysis process followed a six-phase procedure (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022). First, the main data collected from the interviews were familiarized with by the first author of this study, who read and reread them, listened to them and transcribed them. Then, reduced expressions were formed, and initial coding was interpreted. At this point, the preliminary themes were also produced and discussed together with all authors (e.g. Belotto, 2018; Braun & Clarke, 2022). Preliminary theming involved analyzing the data and reducing them to only those related to the theme of team learning. Themes that did not address the research questions were removed from further analysis. Then, the researchers reviewed and discussed the remaining themes. At this point, the data were divided into four defined themes:

1. working in teams;

2. team learning;

3. learning and development of the interviewees; and

4. school development.

We primarily used interviews with teachers and quotes derived from these interviews. However, we decided not to use direct quotations from principals in the report because of their anonymity. To address the three research questions of this study, the data-based findings were organized into three complementary themes: “Teacher team leaders’ team learning perceptions,” “Team-leader teachers’ experiences and development” and “Overcoming challenges in promoting change within a school community.”

The findings of this study are presented in two parts. The first part compiles team leaders’ experiences and perceptions regarding their teams’ learning and development, as well as their own professional development. This part presents the findings related to RQ1 and RQ2: “How do teacher team leaders perceive team learning in development teams?” and “How do they consider their professional development related to their new role?” The second part of the finding focuses on RQ3: “What key aspects contribute to the success of development teams in terms of promoting school community development?” It encompasses the insights of both the team leaders and the principals regarding team learning and development teams within the context of school development.

The teacher team leaders emphasized that the academic year featuring a new form of team collaboration yielded success within the school community. Reflecting on the future improved the understanding of how the school community thinks in distinct ways. One team leader reflected on the challenges encountered during the year and acknowledged that the school staff had to adapt to learning and tolerate uncertainty.

Additionally, some team leaders stated that dealing with contrasting views was challenging, and the team leader’s role was to bridge this divide and motivate the team members to see and reflect on different (and even opposing) views. According to one team leader, negativity occasionally emerged during team collaboration, but the team leaders made efforts to address this by promoting compromise and finding common ground.

Some of the team leaders mentioned specific and even complex problems regarding teachers’ contrasting views. To overcome this situation, a team leader noted that, after identifying the team’s purpose, the team’s key goal was to increase staff knowledge of the work community by getting the school’s staff to know each other.

An overarching theme that emerged from the data was the presence of challenges related to team members’ motivation, commitment and engagement. Team leaders consistently highlighted issues regarding some team members’ lack of motivation to work collaboratively, which directly impacted the effectiveness of development teams. One of the reasons for teachers’ passivity was that they did not personally find the development work interesting or relevant. Moreover, the differing perceptions of primary and lower secondary school teachers also impacted the dynamics within the development teams.

Furthermore, the team leaders encountered difficulties during team meetings, as certain team discussions tended to revolve around daily issues rather than focusing on development objectives. They noted that different perceptions of teaching arrangements led to confusion and misunderstandings between teacher groups, and as a result, their teams faced challenges with overlapping themes with other teams. As one team leader pointed out, these issues contributed to a decline in team commitment over time.

For most team leaders, their role was entirely new. The new role of development team leader was met with a range of reactions among the interviewees, despite some having more teaching experience than others. Especially in the initial stages, some faced challenges in visualizing and understanding the expectations associated with this role. Additionally, not all team leaders felt an inherent need for the role. In certain instances, the principals personally approached and asked individuals to take on the position when there were no enthusiastic volunteers within the team. The team leaders felt pressured to cope with their role and to reflect on it.

Overall, as they reflected on their roles as development team leaders from an individual perspective, they noted that they had acquired valuable skills and experience through this experience, as it boosted their confidence within their teams. For example, peer leadership within the teacher community posed challenges for team leaders, and each built their leadership style slightly differently, reflecting their own personality.

The team leaders expressed that they had gained a deeper understanding of the school community and had become more aware of the skills possessed by different individuals. The teams also made it clear that people have unique needs and perceptions when it comes to participating in such activities within development teams. For some individuals, this means that someone tells them what to do, as described by one team leader:

Meanwhile, leading development teams was emotionally challenging. The team leaders experienced a wide range of emotions throughout the year, including receiving positive feedback and encountering intense negativity within the community regarding innovation.

School development through teamwork was seen as an avenue that opened opportunities for continued collaboration in the new premises. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the school’s future, team leaders believed that the lessons learned provided a solid foundation for moving forward. In this context, the team leaders evaluated both their own potential and the school’s potential in relation to change:

While the teams facilitated team-oriented development and shared thinking, the interviewees expressed a desire to enhance clarity within the teams. This included improving the connections between development teams and management team meetings and re-evaluating team sizes, development themes and even team names and topics. The interviewees emphasized establishing a strong profile for pedagogical development teams that would involve various working methods, including informal gatherings such as “pedagogical coffee meetings.” These meetings would be open to everyone in the school community, irrespective of their team, to encourage and create space for pedagogical discussions in the new school community.

The team leaders and both principals highlighted teams’ and individuals’ varying mindsets toward development teams. One principal noted that teachers who desired change tended to be quieter than those who were more resistant to it. He emphasized the importance of considering the ideas and aspirations of both those who value tradition and stability and those who desire change. As a result, the principal felt the need for different approaches and negotiation tactics to promote change and considered benchmarking visits to other schools as a key driver for renewing thinking and creating a more cohesive understanding of the new community, including the school day structure and development team activities. Regarding school development, the principals aimed to have team leaders represent school staff by being motivated and enthusiastic. However, they observed that the more experienced teachers were not necessarily interested in team leadership, although the chosen team leaders had a large amount of teaching experience. Even though experienced teachers were familiar with school operations, newly recruited teachers were selected for leadership positions too.

During the development project, a new management team was formed at the school to support and lead its development, in addition to the development teams. Both teachers and principals recognized that the management structure required an innovative approach to running the school through discussions. However, the extent of change was restricted during the project, partially because of the late launch of the new management team, which was caused by delays in officially establishing the new school within the municipal systems.

The principals noted that one academic year was a brief period to fully implement and realize change, especially given that the new school was simultaneously under construction. One principal compared the previous year to their previous experience of how teachers had taken time to adjust and integrate new guidance when the principal had been changed. The principal observed that there had long been a belief that new initiatives and policies come from external sources (e.g. a local education committee) rather than from the school staff. According to the interviewees, the development project with the university helped the school community learn how to plan and implement teams as a part of school improvement efforts. However, team leaders and principals acknowledged that development teams and broader development efforts must consume only some available collaboration resources, as teachers also require daily teams to plan and share teaching experiences while continuously developing themselves.

In our project with the school, team learning was based on teachers’ discussions and dialogue about relevant topical issues and setting common goals (Senge et al., 2012). Teacher teams play a vital role in teachers’ professional development, as well as in organizational learning and development (e.g. Bouwmans et al., 2017). To provide additional insight into both team learning and school development, we addressed three research questions: How do teacher team leaders perceive team learning in development teams? How do teacher team leaders consider their professional development in relation to their new role? and What key aspects contribute to the success of development teams in terms of promoting school community development? This study’s findings strengthen the understanding that changing a school’s culture and promoting both teachers’ collaboration and professional development are complex tasks. Moreover, teams and team learning are strongly linked to organizational development, meaning that changes in, for example, the school’s management framework contribute to changes in how teams operate and develop within the school.

This study shows that the school community’s prevailing perceptions of teachers’ competence and motivation for development appeared to be associated with the functionality of team and teacher interactions. Teacher team leaders reported that the new approach to teamwork in development teams was successful, despite challenges, and facilitated a deeper understanding of community perspectives. For RQ1, our findings indicate a connection to a previous observation that professional learning is often multi-level and unpredictable (Korthagen, 2017). Team leaders acknowledged that addressing teachers’ contrasting views was challenging but emphasized the importance of understanding the school’s background and the staff’s readiness to work on shared premises in the future.

For RQ2, team leader teachers viewed their role as bridging teachers’ differing perspectives and encouraging reflection on varied views. The development teams allowed team leaders to gain a deeper understanding of the school community, highlighting the unique skills, needs and perceptions of individuals regarding school development. For example, perceptions of primary and lower secondary school teachers affected development teams’ work. Team leaders had mixed emotions about their new positions and faced challenges in peer leadership within the teacher community. For example, team leaders and school principals noted the presence of unique mindsets and engagement in development work among both teams and individuals regarding development teams. Also, more experienced teachers were not automatically chosen as team leaders; younger teachers were also selected for these roles. Thus, the finding connects to earlier observations that new teachers require support and guidance in their roles as team leaders (Meirink et al., 2020).

As stressed by de Jong et al. (2021), continuous collective participation and dialogue between teachers support teachers’ professional learning. Thus, the school’s development process aimed to introduce more cohesive boundary-crossing team learning processes within the school. Teams were recognized as important spaces for individual and organizational learning and innovation within the school community (Bouwmans et al., 2017; Senge et al., 2012; Witherspoon, 2022). This aligns with the widely recognized core concept of learning community development, where learning takes place at the individual, team and organizational levels (Levine & Marcus, 2010; Vangrieken et al., 2015).

Regarding RQ3, the interviewees recognized the value of collaborative development and shared thinking. They also expressed a desire to enhance clarity in teams by better integrating development teams with the school’s management system. Team learning was a process of sharing and combining knowledge through discussion and dialogue. This process aimed to generate new knowledge and practices that enhance learning in the school community (Boak, 2014; Senge et al., 2012). Thus, it is also vital to continually develop teams and review team profiles, as the culture of the unified school is not solely created by staff and students moving into shared premises to teach and learn. Furthermore, they acknowledged that the aspirations of those who value tradition and those who seek change must be considered.

With upcoming changes in mind, this study intentionally established development teams to create mixed, interdisciplinary groups of staff, including class teachers, subject teachers, special education teachers, special needs assistants, the school’s curator, psychologists and health nurses. These groups were designed to enable collaboration across boundaries. In a unified comprehensive school, the different levels have varying teaching cultures, ways of thinking and criteria for teaching and learning. Thus, boundary-crossing activities within teams aimed to introduce innovative ideas to the school to promote its development and commitment. These activities promoted deeper team learning through discussion and dialogue. Moreover, benchmarking visits to other schools were seen as a key driver for renewing thinking and understanding among the staff.

Changes in the school community can present an opportunity for schools and teachers to reflect on the overall state of the community and to explore their attitudes and perceptions toward change. Another important question that arises is “How can team leaders find the time to develop their skills and learn to master team management to ensure consistent collaboration in teams?” In our project, teacher team leaders encountered motivated teachers, as well as those who were unmotivated and, if not resistant, doubted the change. Thus, as team learning is a tool for teachers’ professional development, teachers’ mindsets toward change must be considered. Moreover, one of the school community’s greatest challenges lies in how it manages to build a bridge between learning at the team and organizational levels (Arrow & Cook, 2007; Senge, 1990). In this study, the development teams were influenced by the teachers’ expectations and readiness to work in teams and the school community’s traditions. For example, teacher teamwork and collaboration were familiar to teachers from subject groups and grade-level teams. However, these teams were quite independent, and organizational decisions minimally influenced their activities. Development teams, on the other hand, were more interdependent with management teams and other teams. For example, the management team monitored their actions and decisions, and the team depended on the management team to achieve the school’s shared vision and goals.

Building trust between team members requires staff members to feel comfortable while facing challenges (Edmondson et al., 2007; Senge, 1990). In the teams, varied ways of thinking were encountered, manifesting in various forms. Therefore, the team leaders needed to facilitate communication, encourage respectful debate and guide the teams toward resolution. Overall, the team-based professional learning and transition to a unified comprehensive school required a fundamental change of practices and culture (Korthagen, 2017), along with increased collaboration across perceived and dividing boundaries. Many teachers are uncomfortable with any level of conflict and prefer isolation compared to the tensions involved in joint work (Uline et al., 2003), as conflict in teamwork is a regular occurrence (O’Neill & McLarnon, 2018). Thus, members of the school community require carefully structured activities as they begin to develop dialogue, discussion and collaborative experimentation and practices. Based on our findings, in future development endeavors, it would certainly be beneficial to more consciously explore ways how teacher team leaders navigate disagreements and lead them toward constructive conflict, as “Conflict is present within our schools whether we like it or not” (Uline et al., 2003, p. 813).

First, the main limitation of this study is that it focused on the process of one school community. The participating school had its own unique history and reasons for why certain practices, such as teachers’ development-oriented teamwork or in-depth collaboration between class teachers and subject teachers, were mostly new concepts. Second, the temporary relocation of the school and the measurable distance between the primary and lower secondary schools might have contributed to teacher collaboration. Third, we notice the limitations related to the time and duration of the development project, which took place before the school community’s move into the new premises. Fourth, it is important to consider the influence of the researchers themselves as a potential limitation. This community-based development project was conducted in close school–university collaboration between school staff and university researchers, each contributing their expertise to the school’s development project. In the tradition of development-oriented research, researchers play a twofold role as researchers and collaborative partners in the process of school development. Finally, in this study, we attempted to explore what worked and what did not work during the school’s development process; however, it is not a perfect picture of this complex process.

While team learning is a widely studied concept, this study goes beyond that by not only reinforcing theoretical understanding but also by demonstrating its practical application within a learning community that integrates two different school levels. Emerging from a school-wide initiative conducted in close collaboration with the entire community, the development process offered a compelling perspective on how the learning community discipline of team learning (Senge, 1990, 2006; Senge et al., 2012) can be meaningfully integrated into everyday school life. The boundary-crossing learning process, both within schools and among teacher educators, teachers and other staff, brought together different levels of expertise and shed light on key themes such as continuous teacher learning and development, collaboration and improvement (e.g. Akkerman & Bruining, 2016). Team-based work, grounded in dialogue and experimentation, placed team leaders in a new position. To lead and facilitate teams’ activities, these teachers encountered various leadership challenges. Teacher expertise should also be viewed as partially independent of years of experience, as less experienced teachers also served as team leaders. Therefore, in schools that adopt a team-based structure, professional development should also focus on strengthening teachers’ leadership skills (de Jong et al., 2021).

In this study, teacher team leaders’ and principals’ reflections on distributed leadership through development teams, teachers’ knowledge and skills regarding their profession, and their willingness to describe the state of their school provided us with a gateway to examine the link between team learning and the school community’s development. Thus, this study offers new insights into the learning community framework by connecting team learning challenges with the school development process, thereby deepening the understanding of the conditions for learning community development and offering practical guidance for supporting such development in schools. As the schools develop as environments for teachers’ ongoing professional development and learning, a more in-depth understanding of the complex nature of team learning in learning school communities is essential.