Martine van der Pluijm

67 Creating partnerships – a formative evaluation Our professionalization process acknowledged teachers’ need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This implied that teachers could develop plans depending on their time and energy and were provided with positive feedback on their performance to support their feelings of self-efficacy (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). In addition, teachers were coached to find satisfying solutions to improve their practice and overcome barriers (Van Veen et al., 2012). Situated learning, embedding learning in teachers’ authentic work, was used to meet the needs of teachers and facilitate deep learning (Ericson, 2006; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kolb, 2014; Korthagen, 2010; Walker & Dotger, 2012). Three types of activities were employed to facilitate the process of developing teachers’ professional behavior. First, we organized workshops (four sessions of 90 minutes) to explore the theoretical backgrounds underpinning the prototype and exploring teachers’ contexts and questions. Preliminary simulations were enacted to design and test teachers’ solutions and discuss possible behavior (Walker & Leg, 2018). Second, we formed design teams at each of the three schools with teachers, principals, parent educators, and researchers to develop and evaluate solutions for teachers’ practice and school policy (six sessions of 90 minutes). Third, we supported teachers individually through continuous plan-act-reflect coaching cycles in their classrooms (approximately 22 sessions with each teacher). We continued these coaching sessions until we found satisfying solutions for teachers’ practices, and until teachers were confident in using the required skills (Van Veen et al., 2012). Participation in professionalization sessions We invited teachers, parent educators, and principals to participate in workshops and design activities that supported professional development at their school locations. All participants of each of the schools took part in the workshops that were organized at the five locations. The group of ten active teachers, the principals, and parent educators were all invited to the design sessions. Two teachers participated in the first three sessions only (design principles 1 to 3) and then decided not to extend their SFPs (see later). One teacher stopped after testing design principle 4. The other seven teachers participated in all the sessions. Finally, ten teachers participated in cyclic testing in classrooms. Seven teachers completed the full range of cycles to implement the prototype. The three teachers that stopped during the design teams also stopped testing in classrooms. The parent educators participated only two or three times due to other duties. The school principals participated in all the sessions. Procedure The study took place from January 2013 until the summer of 2014. To facilitate the process of collaborative learning and research, we prepared a schedule for each of the three school teams that included workshops, testing sessions of the prototype in the classroom, and meetings with design teams dependent on teachers’ agendas. The first author, an experienced process