A familiar problem: one enthusiastic teacher attends a training course, comes back full of ideas, and meets colleagues who aren't interested. In the Czech Republic, earlier courses ran into exactly this kind of resistance. A national survey cited in the paper found only about half of schools had a team of teachers planning environmental education together. What happens when training is built around a team in one school instead?
How the program worked. Masters of Peer Support was run from 2017 to 2020 by three Czech environmental education centers: SEVER, TEREZA and Lipka. It reached 64 elementary schools over four two-year rounds. Its aim was to help teachers build students' scientific literacy: their ability to ask questions, investigate and think like scientists.
In each school, one teacher served as team leader (the program called this role "mentor"). The team leader coordinated three to ten colleagues. Teams met regularly, chose goals that fit their school, planned how to reach them and tracked progress. Each center provided outside coaches, who helped team leaders clarify goals, run their teams and find teaching ideas. Center staff also ran meetings and a summer school for team leaders. Each team created something concrete. Examples included a school-wide project day on water, new outdoor field trips, investigation projects in city parks and new habitats for insects.
How the study worked. The researchers studied the first round, in 24 schools. They asked teachers and team leaders, before the program, what they expected to gain (87 teachers responded). Afterward, they asked what had changed in their teaching. In five schools, they also held group discussions with teachers and interviewed team leaders twice. They gathered views from the nine outside coaches and interviewed program managers three times.
What they found:
- Freedom felt confusing at first, then freeing. Some teachers and team leaders were thrown by the program's open structure and worried about the time it would take. As work went on, they found the freedom let them experiment and break old habits. One teacher said it allowed the team to "bloom."
- Teachers changed how they worked together. Most teachers reported changes in their teaching. Many began teaching in pairs or small teams. Some combined subjects, such as language and science. Others planned joint lessons for students of different ages. One primary teacher described how a high school colleague helped her put a science lesson in a clearer order. In turn, he learned how to talk to young children.
- Motivation came back. Teachers who had taught the same way for years said they felt "hooked" again. They saw their students more engaged, and said some children showed strengths that had not come out before.
- Team leaders needed new skills. Leading colleagues was a new role. Team leaders had to manage group dynamics, deal with problems as they came up and keep the team together.
- Real barriers remained. Planning and carrying out projects took a lot of time. Principals often gave permission but little active support. Colleagues outside the teams sometimes resisted. One teacher tried to spread investigation-based teaching across the school but found that colleagues saw it as too demanding.
- The organizers learned as well. Many coaches realized they were not prepared to guide teams rather than direct them, and had to learn on the job. Coaches said they needed training before the program began. The three centers, which had worked separately, began sharing methods and working much more closely.
The researchers also note that students experienced the changes but were not involved in shaping them.
What this means for your practice:
Build a team, not a lone champion. Teams within schools were the heart of this program, and most teachers reported changes in practice (findings 2 and 3). Bring together a small group in one school, with one teacher leading. Agree on one goal that fits your school, meet regularly and aim for something concrete, such as a new unit or a project day.
Give freedom, with clear limits. Open goal-setting was the main driver of learning (finding 1). The researchers recommend balancing that freedom with guidance and clear boundaries. Tell teams early that the first stage may feel unclear, and that this is normal.
Plan for feelings. Teachers moved from fear to enthusiasm (findings 1 and 3). The researchers recommend that people running programs pay attention to this emotional side. Acknowledge worries early, and celebrate team projects when they are finished.
Teach in pairs and visit each other. Paired teaching and honest peer feedback were among the most common changes teachers reported (finding 2). Pair teachers from different subjects or grade levels and watch each other teach.
Ask principals for more than a yes. Limited support from school leaders was a major barrier (finding 5). The researchers recommend involving school leadership more fully. Ask early for time, interest and visible backing.
Plan for colleagues outside the team. Resistance from uninvolved staff held back wider change (finding 5). The paper does not test ways to address this, but it shows the issue needs planning from the start.
Train coaches before they start. Coaches struggled to guide rather than direct (finding 6). If you run a program like this, the researchers recommend training coaches in group facilitation before they begin.
Bring students in. The researchers suggest making students active partners in planning changes. This is their recommendation, based on noticing that students were left out.
The Bottom Line
The researchers gathered views from elementary school teachers, their in-school team leaders and the staff who ran the program, across its first two-year round in 24 schools. Teachers who had freedom to set their own team goals moved from early confusion and fear to real enthusiasm. Many began teaching in pairs, combining subjects and giving each other feedback, and many said their motivation to teach returned. Limited time, weak support from principals and resistance from colleagues outside the teams slowed progress. The staff running the program also had to learn, especially how to guide teams rather than direct them. For educators, the study shows that peer learning inside a school can change everyday teaching, provided it has leadership backing and skilled facilitation.