Collaborative Learning as Networking. How Does It Work in practice?

Thoe article addresses the question of sustainability of the results of various school projects. Slovenian schools have a long standing tradition of project collaboration within networks. Regardless of the added value that networking brings to schools, we have been ofthen witnessing the shutdown of networks in practice. It usually happens when the project is no longer supported by systemic, especially fienancial measures. Thoe GIVE&GET model, developed in the PROMISE project, brings the key emphasis on mutual networking, which can be autonomously managed and directed without a major role of the third party. It offeers an insight into how to keep the existing networks functioning to ensure the mutual sharing of various project outcomes.


Introduction
Due to the increasing complexity of the educational environment, the need for interprofessional collaborative learning, in which teams of teachers from diffeerent disciplines or other professionals work to achieve common goals, is increasingly highlighted (Lakerveld, 2019). Muijs (2015) fi nds that the most important goal is to improve schools, namely, to empower them for change and bett er education (safe and stimulating learning environment, quality knowledge, developed competencies). Interprofessional collaborative learning can be effeectively achieved through networking between schools (inter-organizational cooperation and networking), as within the school (among the subject groups). Theeoretically, there are many reasons that networking between schools is a way to improve the work of schools and to reform the school system (Muijs, et al., 2011).
'Teachers have a demanding role in supporting student learning in the 21st century. Theey support the learning process, listen to students and their needs, provide appropriate strategies, tools, skills and resources to make learning hap-pen. But on the other side teachers also need to be fluexible to every changing environment, including society, technology and the world in which we live. We ofthen fi nd ourselves in diffeerent positions, sometimes moulding to these positions and other needing greater fluexibility of training. ' (Sachs, 2007, p. 9) According to Sachs (2007), Grundy and Robison (2003) identify three interconnected purposes of CPD: extension, growth and renewal. Extension is through introducing new knowledge or skills to a teachers' repertoire, growth is by the development of greater levels of expertise and renewal is achieved through transformation and change of knowledge and practice. Sachs (2007) identifi es three metaphors to describe current approaches to the continuing professional development of teachers which refluect Grundy and Robison's stated purposes: retooling, remodelling and revitalising. Continuing Professional Development as revitalizing is to be found through professional development networks.

The story of the pRoMIsE project in slovenia
Thee PROMISE project addresses pedagogical dilemmas of contemporary education. Teachers who are working in complex circumstances are facing challenges which need to be discussed, refluected and faced. In such a process teachers need to meet other professionals either from their own environment or beyond. Theey need to cross boundaries between diffeerent fi elds of education, diffeerent systems, diffeerent learning environments, diffeerent professions, diffeerent roles. Thee purpose of the project is to expand the process of professional learning and exceed the boundaries.
Morris, Chrispeals andBurke (2003 in Sachs, 2007) argue that two linked processes of CPD can create opportunities for teacher learning and transformation. Theey claim that external teacher networks that focus predominately on enhancing teachers' pedagogical knowledge and collaborative and leadership skills in a content area when linked with internal school reform networks and projects can provide the transformative power to alter professional development and teacher learning in powerful and sustainable ways.
Slovenian schools have a long standing tradition of working in networks. Regardless of the added value that networking brings to schools, we have been ofthen witnessing the shutdown of networks in practice. Usually, this happens on completion of the project or in case when it is no longer supported by systemic, espe-Brigita Žarkovič Adlešič -Branko Slivar cially fi nancial measures. Theerefore, the question of how to keep the existing networks functioning and what is the role of management is becoming more and more common.
If we want to ensure the sustainability of the results of various projects, we need to establish networking and exchange between schools according to the principles of self-regulation. Schools need to be empowered for self-supportive partnerships between schools which would be based on their trust that crossing boundaries between schools brings new quality to their professional growth and learning.
In the PROMISE project we focused upon crossing boundaries through networking between schools. We agreed to develop diffeerent approaches to dissemination of knowledge and project results (networking) between schools, to test diffeerent approaches with partner schools from diffeerent regions on a give-andget basis, to evaluate the approaches and the networking and to establish a database of schools to facilitate networking between schools. To be able to fulfi l all the above we had to empower schools in the content and process aspects.
We set three phases during the course of the project: Year 1: introductory phase • Establishing cooperation between schools: In the cooperation process, each team presents itself to the partner team. • Production of vignett es / case studies designed to encourage refluection on various dilemmas, discussion and overcoming of limiting beliefs, and thinking about solutions; content: aspect of inclusion for all (students and teachers) -experience of teams from diffeerent projects • Training of teams -carried out by NEIS (topics: process management, learning protocols, introduction of changes, moderation) Year 2: developmental phase • Designing, Implementation, monitoring and modifi cation of the GIVE AND GET model. Thee model represents approaches by which partners effeectively exchange knowledge… between two or more partners according to the Give and Get principle. Each of the partners in the process of cooperation presents their activities (knowledge, experience, project results) to others using various protocols, approaches, tools. Year 3: fi nal phase • Evaluation of the model • Presentation of project results -closing conference • Possibility to participate in the PROMISE Learning Event The story on a school level -Give and Get model According to Lofthhouse and Theomas (2015) collaboration for the development of their own teaching practices allows teachers to engage in more informed decision-making and to construct a shared understanding of the nature of the desired learning outcomes and how they might be achieved in their own contexts.
In the initial phase of the project, we invited three schools, represented by school teams, to take part in the PROMISE project. We asked each of them to fi nd a partner school who would be willing to get involved in a partnership and collaboration for the next three years. Together we involved 6 schools (4 primary and 2 secondary) who joined our fi rst meeting.
We agreed to work together in the creation and testing of a self-supportive model, which enables learning through networking and collaboration between schools. It is based on the principle give-and-get. Each partner needs to offeer some knowledge, skills or practices that were developed in their school to be able to get whatever was offeered by their partner and seems of interest to them. Thee model assumes that in cooperation the exchange of practices, joint problem solving and mutual support are established. Partners need to set clearly defi ned goals and activities, and recognize mutual benefi ts.
Thee Give&Get model includes following steps: 1. Thee preparation step is a refluection of each partner school on their own strengths, needs and abilities. Theis encompasses questions such as: How do we present ourselves as a school? What are we interested in? What can we offeer to others? What are we good at? How could we empower our team for collaboration? 2. Gett ing to know our partners consists of presentation of the project ideas to another school and sett ing up a partnership. Theey could think about questions such as: How do we get to know each other best? How to prepare a meeting with another team? 3. Thee networking and implementation entails action, mutual presentation of activities of both teams, creative approaches in the presentation of topics, implementation of workshops and other collaborating activities.
4. Thee cooperation step involves mutual planning and looking forward to future collaborating activities, thinking about questions such as: What will be our next steps? For example, upgrading further cooperation through observations, peer support, teacher exchange, work shadowing, etc.) 5. Thee evaluation step raises questions as: How to set up an effeective selfevaluation for the team? What did we get? What did we give? What did it bring us? What do we want for the future? We developed all the steps together with schools during a two-day learning event where they made a plan for their future collaboration and school activities. We introduced and tried out several tools and approaches, which could be useful in diffeerent steps of the model (Open space, World Café, Storytelling, 4-MAT, Vignett es, etc..) In the second year, partner schools established their partnerships, bonded and started the networking. Ideas for future collaboration were launched by the end of second year when several school visits had already taken place. We held a meeting where partner schools presented their collaboration and refluected upon their challenges.
Thee last year, 2021 has been devoted to evaluation and planning of new partnerships based on lessons learned from the year one and two.

partnerships of schools -What is in it for them?
Partner schools presented their learning experiences in their collaboration and networking. Theey chose diffeerent creative approaches to present themselves and break the ice between the teams. Theey have chosen a rich variety of topics, like working with gifthed and talented students, formative assessment, collegial observation, learning walks (open doors to colleagues), common planning of subject teachers from diffeerent schools (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Languages), collaboration between vocational and grammar schools -open doors for students, etc.
Theey mostly started in a playful and non-formal way to develop mutual trust and motivation. Afther the initial step several activities took place, planned on monthly basis. Theeir activities were interrupted by the lock down when schools were closed. Theey reported that teachers, students and parents gained a lot from their common activities and that they miss each other. Theey all planned also further collaboration afther the end of the project.

Conclusions
So far, the implementation of the project has shown that the participants -teachers and principals, have recognized the added value of the GIVE&GET model, where the key emphasis is on mutual networking, which can be autonomously managed and directed without a major role of the third, party (external factor). Theroughout the implementation of the GIVE&GET model, we systematically monitored activities and processes in schools as part of the formative evaluation. A summative evaluation is not yet possible as the project is not fi nished.
Thee key fi ndings, which are presented below, were based on a qualitative approach, in which we obtained feedback at evaluation meetings with teachers and principals on: 1. att itude to the idea of the model, Brigita Žarkovič Adlešič -Branko Slivar 2. motivation to take part and 3. the practice of project management at school in mutual conditions. networking. Thee att itude of principals and teachers towards the model referred to a cognitive aspect such as e.g. beliefs and affeections, which determines how important participants fi nd the networking, and an affeective aspect that determines how teachers feel about networking and how enthusiastic they are (LELENET, 2019). Motivation was related to the reasons for cooperation such as. expectation of the principal, awareness of the importance of networking, cooperation with other experts, etc. Thee third element was related to the principal's practice of running the school, in terms of collaborating, encouraging and directing networking.
Thee feedback showed that teachers and principals expressed strong positive beliefs about the important added value of networking and a strong willingness to take part in the activities of the GIVE&GET model. Teachers and principals also showed enthusiasm for the work in their refluections and showed a positive feeling. Theis was seen mainly in workshops and mutual meetings at partner schools in the second and third steps of the model (Gett ing to know our partners and Networking and implementation). In the area of motivation, teachers highlighted the awareness of the importance of networking and the desire to work with colleagues and professionals from another school. We did not perceive a controlled orientation in the refluections, i.e. engaging in networking on the request or instruction of the principal. Independent motivation or the absence of controlled orientation shown by teachers is an important factor in the fact that teachers will persist in their activities, even when something goes wrong or barriers to networking will appear (LELENET, 2019). In school management practices, we recognized that principals strongly supported their teachers in the single steps of implementing the model, encouraging various forms of learning among teachers. In leadership, they focused on monitoring and improving pedagogical processes in teachers.
A positive att itude towards networking, independent motivation and the concept of shared pedagogical leadership are one of the conditions for the networks to live on their own. Thee second part of the conditions is an online platform that will allow the exchange of information between schools. Theerefore, in the next phase of the implementation of the model, we plan to set up an online platform, which will enable the expansion of the GIVE&GET model among a lar-ger number of schools. Theis would mean that schools that want to share their experience and knowledge will contribute to the database with what they can offeer to other schools (GIVE) and look for what they want to get from other schools (GET).
However, the question stays whether a national institution will be needed for the initial incentive to include schools in the GIVE&GET model, and who will manage the platform?