The purpose of this paper is to examine frameworks which sustain professional learning in light of two characteristics: the situated and social influences on learning. Three frameworks for professional learning in different disciplinary fields will be discussed: teacher research in education, action learning in business contexts, and problem-based learning in medical contexts. These frameworks will be examined according to following criteria: the purpose, the design characteristics underpinning each framework, and the nature of the learning produced. An argument is presented that it is the interplay between the situated and social characteristics embedded in the frameworks which sustains the professional learning although in slightly different ways.

The nature of professional or workplace learning has experienced major changes over the last 10 years in various disciplines. These changes have occurred in the way in which professional preparation programmes have been designed to support sustained learning in the workplace setting. The model which has dominated professional preparation schools and workplace learning programmes for the past fifty years or more has been one of using generalized disciplinary knowledge as a basis for the derivation of applications aimed at solving specific problems of practice. This model has been labelled the "technical rational" approach by Schön (1983) and has been subject to increasing criticism in a number of different professional fields. Two of the significant reasons for these changes are first, the recognition that much of the expertise of professionals resides in their practice in action settings -- what Schön (1983) has called "knowing-in-action"; and second, an increasing awareness of the complexity of most professional contexts which are often characterized by the elements of uncertainty, rapid change, value conflicts, and dilemmas. Rarely are problems of practice in the "swamp" easily resolved by the straightforward application of technical solutions (Schön, 1983, 1987).

A related and accompanying trend has been the significant shift in perspectives in the disciplinary field of learning and cognition. Contemporary models of learning emerging from a number of disciplinary fields have departed from earlier behaviorist models of learning in two fundamental ways. First, there is a growing recognition that learning is fundamentally situated in the context of experiences and practices such as a child learning language in a supportive family environment (Cambourne, 1988) or an apprentice tailor in Gola learning in a "community of practice" (Lave, 1996). In particular, the simplistic notion of presenting decontextualised knowledge to learners in preparation programmes, who are isolated from the practice setting, or in one-shot programs in a workplace setting has been strongly challenged. These activities rarely result in meaningful learning and they have limited value in terms of increasing the participants' understanding of their workplace practices (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1996).

A second significant departure from earlier models of cognition is the recognition that learning almost always has an important social component and it is necessary to identify and recognise the nature of these social influences on the design of learning environments in professional contexts. These social influences are operative at a variety of different levels. The most apparent or immediate social influence is the fact that much of the learning which takes place in professional practice settings occur in a social setting wherein there are at least two (and usually more) participants making sense of the phenomena. For example, we note the extensive use of group learning strategies in school (e.g. cooperative learning) and workplace settings (e.g. study groups) over the past fifteen years. In the area of teacher learning, there has been a proliferation of collaborative and partnership type projects designed to enhance teacher learning and to bring about more fundamental school reform agendas.

Our interests in this paper, then, are to examine some of the trends that have emerged in the past fifteen years in programs that are designed to address some of the changing perspectives on workplace learning outlined above. In particular, we are interested in examining those characteristics which appear to be critical in the design of learning environments which contribute to the viability and sustainability of those environments. We have endeavoured to undertake this analytical task by searching for what we are calling common learning characteristics across different educational contexts. Some of our earlier work include: Hoban's (1996) doctoral dissertation where he generated a detailed case study of the nature of the professional learning of three teachers over a three year period. The analytical framework evolved from an initial model developed by Cambourne (1986) in his study of young children learning language in a supportive home environment. Another endeavour has been to compare our insights developed from our work in several different teacher development projects which incorporated a "PEEL" (Baird & Mitchell, 1986) design model and where we examined the conditions and structures required to establish and sustain professional development projects in different educational contexts (Minnes Brandes, Mitchell I., Mitchell J., & Erickson, 1998; Minnes Brandes & Erickson, 1998; Mitchell & Erickson, 1996).

In this paper we wish to extend this analysis by making some comparisons between professional learning initiatives or frameworks as we have called them, as they have evolved in three different professional fields B business and commerce, the medical sciences, and education. We think that some of the same isssues and concerns are present in each of three fields. In particular, we will examine these frameworks in terms of the two characteristics of learning that we outlined above -- the inherent situatedness of professional knowledge and the critical social factors involved in professional learning. In the next section we will briefly outline each of these three frameworks; examine some of the design characteristics that have been articulated for each framework; consider the nature of the learning that seems to emerge from the activities associated with each of these respective endeavours; and finally provide an example of a project exemplifying each frramework. We will then discuss how these two characteristics of learning interact in different ways in each of the frameworks and conclude with a discussion of how these considerations on professional or workplace learning fit with two contemporary perspectives on learning which are grounded in a phenomenological tradition.

Teacher research certainly qualifies as one of the many generic labels used in educational research to denote a wide variety of research activities associated with the generation of knowledge about teaching. The term was used in the 70's and 80's to describe a research agenda undertaken by researchers external to the school setting who were interested in documenting "teacher thinking" and Ateacher decision-making". More recently the term has been used to denote a type of inquiry undertaken by teachers into their own practice. But even with this restricted usage there are still a large number of different perspectives, purposes, and practices that are included under the category of "teacher research". We do not intend to review the historical origins of this work, nor undertake a systematic review of existing practices, since it is not an explicit part of our agenda and secondly, it has already been done by others (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994).

The historical roots of teacher research has been traced back, by some commentators, to the strong pragmatist agenda outlined by Dewey and others in the early 20^th Century wherein knowledge and scholarship was deeply ingrained in the everyday problems of practice. While others see a more direct and stronger link to the rejuvenated focus on "action research", as originally developed by John Collier and Kurt Lewin in the 1930's and 1940's in the areas of applied anthropology and social psychology respectively (c.f. Noffke, 1997). The lack of clear boundaries in articulating this research genre remains to the present day with each commentator stipulating what they wish to include in the category of teacher research.

David Tripp (1996), in his introduction to the SCOPE program, has addressed this boundary problem by arguing that the better generic term to use to cover the range of activities that teachers (and others) might engage in as they inquire into their practice is that of "Action Inquiry". He goes on to suggest that we might envision a dimension consisting of four types of "action inquiry" as outlined below:

Perhaps the most succinct definition of teacher research is that offered by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) who refer to it as: "systematic and intentional inquiry carried out by teachers" (p.7). While this definition leaves open for interpretation the key words of "systematic" and "inquiry", it does insist that teachers are key participants in the activity. However, it also leaves open the possibility of collaborating with other participants, such as university educators, educational personnel with responsibilities at a school district or state level, parents, and students. In fact, in the past ten years many of the collaborative projects involving teachers described in the literature have enrolled one or more of these types of partners. The choice of partners and the nature of the partnership is largely determined by the underlying purpose for undertaking the research initiative.

Teacher research as a means of increasing teacher professionalism and emancipation (e.g. Elliott, 1991; Kincheloe, 1991; Stenhouse, 1967; Tripp, 1993; Zeichner, 1994)

Some have argued that teacher research represents the best approach for generating a knowledge base about teaching that will bridge the theory-practice divide and make a significant contribution to the knowledge base for teaching (e.g. the PEEL and PAVOT initiatives Baird & Mitchell, 1986; Baird & Northfield, 1992; Northfield, Mitchell & Mitchell, 1997; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993; Richardson, 1994; Robinson, 1998)

Often teacher education is linked to various reform agendas (e.g. Australian Innovative Links Project, Down, Hogan & Swan, 1998; Hollingsworth, 1997; )

Some of these different purposes as well as the diversity of theoretical perspectives that have been employed by various contributors to the field is succinctly summarised in this quote by Hollingsworth and Sockett (1994): "The contemporary teacher research movement defines a different character for the close and intimate link between not only an ideology of collective teacher autonomy, but an epistemological and sociopolitical view of educational improvement" (p. 13).

Given the multi-faceted nature and many different models of teacher research, it is difficult to extract overarching design characteristics. Depending upon their interests and theoretical orientations, different proponents have identified a rather large set of 'principles' that define their views of teacher research. One set identified by Hollingsworth and Sockett (1994) captures both operational principles and epistemological principles. These are:

Collaborations and partnerships are created across school and university roles;

Research starts from where the action is;

The practitioner's practical wisdom is a central source of knowledge;

Research leads to personal and social change, as well as curricular and instructional change;

There can be no single, privileged way of knowing (p. 9).

Ownership: Who is in control of asking the questions and making research design decision?

Supportive Structures: What is the nature and type of support offered to undertake this type of research?

Research Questions: How do the questions get framed and from what setting do they emerge?

Generalizability: What claims are made for the application and use of the results?

Theoretical Frameworks: What existing literature is used to generate and interpret the research questions and findings?

Documentation & Analysis: How are the results documented and represented to others?

Given that one of the common purposes and contexts for teacher research is that of professional development or a response to institutional changes, it is surprising how little of this rapidly expanding literature has focused on 'teacher learning'. While it is sometimes acknowledged as a potentially important outcome of teacher research, rather little explicit attention has been written with an explicit agenda of looking at the nature of the learning occurring in these contexts. This claim does require some modification as there are a number of examples of projects where student learning is central to the activity and where teacher learning is certainly discussed (for example, the many activities of the PEEL project teachers (Baird and Mitchell, 1986; Baird and Northfield, 1992) and the teacher development project analyzed in Hoban's (1996) doctoral dissertation. However, these projects are in the borderland between models of teacher research and models of professional development. That is, they tend to fall into the categories to the left side of Tripp's continuum of "Action Inquiry".

It is strongly situated in the context of problems emerging in the teachers' practice settings;

There is a need for on-going support in terms of the norms and practices in the workplace environment and the availability of external sources of support;

Different proponents draw upon different learning models, but the focus of socio-cultural theorists such as Vygotsky, Wertsch, and Lave on the social construction of knowledge seem very prevalent;

It is based more upon the "participation" metaphor than the "accumulation" metaphor (Sfard, 1998);

Developing an awareness of their beliefs through personal reflection on their teaching experiences;

Considering alternative perspectives when sharing their ideas with colleagues in the light of interview comments from their own students describing influences on the students' positive and negative learning experiences;

Generating a community learning environment based on the notion of eight social conditions for learning in a community (Cambourne, 1988) to promote interplay between the principles of awareness and alternatives.

There is considerable congruence between the more general features described above and these three principles of teacher learning. We think that these three principles, along with Cambourne's eight conditions for learning in a community setting (briefly stated these are: immersion, engagement, demonstrations, expectations, responsibility, practice, approximation, and feedback), provide an excellent starting point for the design or analysis of teacher research studies.

This is a case of a university-based educator working collaboratively with a grade 6/7 classroom teacher to design and teach a number of science units (Mueller, 1998). This case is representative of the right end of Tripp's forms of "action inquiry" since it could be construed as a form of action research or researched action . Three different science units were taught and changes were made in each subsequent unit as a result of the researchers' reflection and feedback from the students on the earlier units. We will describe briefly the third teaching unit which involved the students in a project of "creating an innovative amusement park ride or redesigning an existing structure for a company that was building a new amusement park." This challenge was related to a situation in the students' city where the existing amusement park was being taken down and relocated so there was an element of reality to the challenge.

The students worked in groups of 4 to 5 and their task over a period of four weeks was to research different types of rides, decide on a ride they wish to design, prepare detailed drawings of their ride, and finally, make a mechanical model of their ride. Six different rides were generated with provocative names like "The Spinning Tornado", "Wild Rapids", "The Stormchaser", "The Slingshot", "The Water Wheel", and "The Plunge". At the end of the unit the students presented their models and drawings to two different audiences. First, to a panel of their peers and the two teachers where they explained the design and mechanical features of their models and answered other questions germane to their work. And second, they created a County Fair in their classroom and entertained visitors from other classes in the school and from parents and other adults in the community.

While this design project, and the two earlier design projects, were considered to be very successful by the students and the various audiences who were invited to see the students' work, the regular classroom teacher and the university educator engaged in a much more systematic analysis of the classroom activities. Through the use of field notes, audio and video tapes, interviews, and of course the students' projects, they were able to develop a coherent account of the nature of the student learning that had occurred in this classroom in terms of increasing "expertise" at both the individual and the community level. This project enabled them to articulate in concrete terms how a "community of learners" might be established in an elementary classroom, and identify some important features and characteristics of such a community. One particularly interesting feature they described was the importance of creating different kinds of "spaces of inquiry" during the life cycle of a design unit. These spaces they named as: "generative spaces" (time and opportunities to create ideas and design their models); "rehearsal spaces" (opportunity for feedback from their peers and teachers on their design); and "performative spaces" (opportunities to present their ideas and models to audiences outside the classroom).

Action learning originated in the coal industry of Britain in 1945 when field managers were encouraged to work in small groups to find solutions to their immediate work related problems (Revans, 1982). In regular meetings, managers discussed their experiences about coalmining raising pertinent issues and inviting comments from group members. Not only did the managers learn about their own issues but they also learned about the experiences of others. In effect, action learning is based on the sharing of experiences and is "a social process; a lot of people start to learn from each other, and a learning community comes into being" (Revans, 1982, p. 69). The meetings then are regular (every week or two weeks) with participants sharing experiences, raising personal issues and devising action plans which are then discussed at subsequent meetings.

Action learning is now a commonly used framework in business contexts to assist individuals to improve their work practices through reflection, collaboration and action. The distinctive feature of action learning is that five or six participants work together to address work related issues pertinent to each individual. Participants then become involved in a cyclic pattern of reflection on a work related issue followed by discussions with a their small community or "set" providing alternative perspectives on an individual's personal experiences to produce the most appropriate plan for action (McGill & Beaty, 1995; Pedler, 1991; Revans, 1981, 1982; Zuber-Skerritt, 1993). This notion of a support group to assist individual learning in the work place has been explored in various contexts: executives in a textile company (Lewis, 1991); supervisors in an electronic firm (Boddy, 1991); doctors in a hospital (Winkless, 1991); university students in a Masters of Science course (Thorpe & Taylor, 1991); and insurance agents attempting to improve the quality of their service (Schlesinger, 1991).

Four educational principles underpin action learning to sustain workplace professional development: reflection, community, action, and feedback (Hoban, 1996). Independently, these principles are not new, but structuring a professional development program that integrates all four principles provides a framework for continuous learning in a professional context. The first principle, reflection, means participants thinking about a problematic issue to make meaning of experiences which helps them to cope with similar situations in the future. Originally proposed by Dewey (1933) as a particular form of thinking, reflection has been called "a cornerstone of learning and of personal and professional development" (Baird, 1992) and a vehicle for change. The focus of action learning is on the individual as they gain insights about experiences through reflection. The second principle, community, relates to participants sharing their ideas with colleagues to seek different perspectives and gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of their personal experiences. When colleagues provide individuals with perspectives on their experiences, they are supporting personal reflection and action. This social influence on learning was also highlighted by Dewey who defined the notion of community as "sharing in each other's activities and in each other's experiences because they have common ends and purposes" (1916, p. 75).

The third principle, action, entails a form of 'learning by doing' such that participants try new ideas or approaches in their practice which have been generated through reflective conversations from the community discussions. Learning by doing or experimenting with ideas is also not a new concept. It was one of the main tenets in Dewey's (1938) theory of learning through experience and Kolb's (1984) experiential learning cycle. The implication is that putting ideas into action gives more meaning to them because of the understanding gained as a result of knowing the consequences of the action. The fourth principle, feedback, involves monitoring the responses from the actions. This means taking notice of the results of the action plan. It is this feedback that participants discuss at the next meeting in which they again share their ideas as a community and possibly modify their action plan.

The main features of learning which emerge from an action learning framework are that learning is continuous and cumulative. This type of learning is a result of the interractions between the design principles which enhance each other because the participants sustain their reflection, actions and discussions to address their particular issues integrating personal and social influences on learning. This feature of learning is similar to Argyris and Schon's (1974) notion of "double loop learning" except that it is more like multiple loop learning. In short, attempts for learning from experience are reflected upon and revisited to improve the next attempt. The result is what they called Model II learning. This model requires time to clarify problems from diverse viewpoints, examining the underlying assumptions which may underpin a situation, developing skills of inquiry, having a willingness to suspend judgement until all ideas are considered and openly discussing conflict. It is the combined effect the design principlesCreflection, community, action and feedbackCwhich has been called "holistically synergetic" (Cusins, 1995) that sustains the professional learning over long periods of time.

The group leaders' role in action learning is very important. Usually an action learning group consists of 4-6 participants with a facilitator or "set advisor" whose main role to enable each member to work on their particular issue. It is important that the facilitator has an understanding of the action learning framework and can explain how it operates to the participants. Once the participants understand the action learning framework then the faciliator may become redundant. If the faciliator can organise a group to work effectively, then a culture of learning develops within the group as they become a community.