01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Schools As Professional Communities Of Practice In The Spanish Context
Jesús Domingo-Segovia, Javier Mula-Falcón, Javier De la Hoz- Ruíz
University of Granada, Spain
Presenting Author: Mula-Falcón, Javier
Growing evidence suggests the value of developing professional learning communities to ensure educational improvement, with a solid literature developing the ideas of "professional learning communities” (Bolam et al. 2005; Stoll et al. 2006). Educational policy guidelines in the Spanish context assume and promote this school model as the most relevant for encouraging teacher reprofessionalization and educational improvement. It is understood that if schools are to meet the needs of students and achieve educational success, then, in parallel, they must provide opportunities for teachers to learn together how to do it better. But do these conditions exist in today's schools? Moreover, Spanish managers themselves have assumed, in their "Spanish Framework for Good Management" (FEAE/FEDADI/FEDEIP, 2017), that one of the competencies of the "pedagogical leadership" dimension is "Promoting and leading a professional learning community”. All of this signals a point of confluence between current pedagogical knowledge, educational policy, and the professional positioning of school principals' associations regarding the necessary shift towards advanced PCL models. It is therefore interesting to investigate the extent to which Andalusian schools adopt this proposal.
The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the extent to which the Andalusian schools, with diverse realities and at different stages of development, meet the basic dimensions to act as a professional learning community (PLC). Such elements include having a clear-shared goal and being capable of acting systemically in line with a joint community project with leadership, organizational, and professional conditions compatible with the learning of all and among all to increase social and professional capital with differential effects on the education of their students.
To detect the strengths and weaknesses of Andalusian schools as professional learning communities, the instrument used proposes items that respond to a set of questions: Do teachers have shared objectives for school improvement? Are there opportunities to learn from others through open dialogue? Do teachers have opportunities to observe and encourage their colleagues in analyzing classroom practices? Are ideas and suggestions for improving student learning shared informally among colleagues? Finally, are there opportunities at the individual and group levels to apply teaching practices and share results?
We also aimed to analyze whether the central dimensions of the research instrument varied according to the following sociodemographic variables: type and size of educational center, position held or professional function of the informant sample, and gender.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo gather evidence and obtain an overview of the degree of development of the Andalusian school, the study adopted a descriptive and interpretative non-experimental research design.
Population and sample
The target population of our study was those public schools of preschool and Primary Education and Secondary Education Institutes that participated in the "Program for Quality and Improvement of School Performance" since these schools had a philosophy in line with the joint work for the improvement of student outcomes. Of the 287 schools that constitute the population, 38 schools were selected, which was the recommended number for forming a representative sample with a 95% confidence level according to Tagliacarne's formula. Cases were selected using the simple random sampling method.
Instrument, data collection and analysis process
The PLCA-R questionnaire was used in its cross-cultural adaptation, validated for the Spanish context (Domingo et al., 2020): "Cuestionario de Evaluación de la Comunidad de Aprendizaje Profesional Revisado" [Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised, PLCA-R]
Once the sample had been selected, each of these schools was contacted, and both the intentions of the study and the requirements to obtain the desired information were explained. For this purpose, both official communication channels were used (on the recommendation of the Education Inspectorate of each school zone) involving personal communication between researchers and directors.
The SPSS program was used for data analysis, including reliability, basic descriptive, and inferential analyses. Regarding the reliability analysis, it should be noted that construct validity was confirmed by factor analysis since the KMO index (.973) was calculated, and Bartlett's test of Sphericity indicated that the model is significant (0.000). Furthermore, the Varimax rotation analysis revealed that the six factors (which correspond to the dimensions of the questionnaire) explained 64.486% of the variance of the study results.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to evaluate the normality of a data set. Since the differences were significant (.000), the normal distribution of the curve was not accepted, and, therefore, parametric tests could not be used. Therefore, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. These tests were used to compare the differences between each of the six dimensions of the questionnaire according to sociodemographic variables, highlighting any significant relationships
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOn balance, we can conclude that while Andalusian schools are progressing in this aspect they are still far from being prepared to learn collectively. From this, a central issue emerges. It is necessary to increase the level of collective responsibility for the learning of all students. For this, progress must be made both in promoting the qualities to make this possible and in increasing the number of schools on the path to becoming extended communities of professional practice with true intermediate leadership capable of capturing and mobilizing more social and professional capital around collective educational projects "with meaning" for all. Hence, it is important to train school principals as educational leaders (Moreno & López-Yáñez, 2022), promoting a move towards a new professional identity and a framework for school management that emphasizes leadership (Bolívar, 2020). This involves building on the momentum already gained by the necessary post-pandemic school reform (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020) and reimagining the future we want (UNESCO, 2021). To this end, and in line with the proposals of Hargreaves and O’Connor (2020) will be particularly important to promote spaces, events, and tasks that make this possible, along with communities of critical reflection (schools that transform) that gradually increase their relational trust, distributed leadership, interactive professionalism, and collective internal capacities for the improvement of learning for all and among all.
As highlighted by Hairon et al. (2017) in a future research agenda, next to the PLC construct, contexts matter, differentiated at two levels - within and outside school. Some of this school culture has undergone relevant changes due to the pandemic, showing the need for a greater culture of collaboration within each school, but also between schools and the local community, configuring extended learning networks (Bolívar et al., 2022).
ReferencesThe results of this publication are part of three research projects:
1) "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement: intermediate leadership, networks, and interrelationships. Schools in complex contexts" (Ref.: PID2020-117020GB-I00), funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ and ERDF "A way of doing Europe"; and
2) "Communities of professional practice and learning improvement" (Ref.: P20_00311), funded by the Andalusian Plan for Research, Development, and Innovation (PAIDI 2020).
Bolam, R, et al. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities, DfES Research Report RR637, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Bolívar, A. (2020). Otra gobernanza para dinamizar la organización de los centros. [Other governance to make the organisation of the centres more dynamic] En Fernández Enguita, M. (Coord.). La Organización Escolar. Repensando la caja negra para poder salir de ella [School Organisation. Rethinking the black box in order to get out of it] (pp. 37-47). Madrid: ANELE-REDE.
Bolívar, A.; Muñoz, G.; Weinstein, J. & Domingo, J. (Coords.) (2022). Liderazgo educativo en tiempos de crisis: aprendizajes para la escuela post-covid. [Educational leadership in times of crisis: learnings for the post-covid school] Universidad de Granada. Granada.
Domingo, J., Bolívar-Ruano, R., Rodríguez-Fernández, S., & Bolívar, A. (2020). Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R): translation and validation in the Spanish context. Learning Environments Research (LERI), Vol. 23 No 3, pp. 347-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09306-1
FEAE/FEDADI/FEDEIP (2017). Marco Español para la Buena Dirección. [Spanish Framework for Good Governance]. http://educalab.es/documents/10180/38496/MEDB+digital/4ea4b5d9-6a99-468c-a387-46affa4b6c50
Hairon, S. et al. (2017). A Research Agenda for Professional Learning Communities: moving forward. Professional Development in Education, Vol. 43 No 1, pp. 72-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1055861
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2020). Professional capital after the pandemic: revisiting and revising classic understandings of teachers' work. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 5 No 3/4, pp. 327-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0039
Hargreaves, A., O’Connor, M.T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When teaching together means learning for all. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moreno, M. S., & López-Yáñez, J. (2022). Formar directivos para la escuela real. Un enfoque basado en el análisis de la práctica en grupos [Training leaders for the real school. An approach based on the analysis of group practice]. Ciencia y Educación, 6(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.22206/cyed.2022.v6i1.pp43-61
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M. & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 7, No 4 pp. 221-258.
UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together. A new social contract for education. Report from the International Commission on the Futures of Education. UNESCO.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
The key to successful discipline-based Professional Learning Communities: Facilitator Identity and Training in a Rapidly Changing Educational Landscape
Tali Berglas-Shapiro, Jonathan Mendels
Mofet Institute, Israel
Presenting Author: Mendels, Jonathan
Professional learning communities (PLCs) of educators are groups of individuals who constantly seek to improve their teaching practices. The essential features of such communities include collaboration, shared goals, action, result-driven processes, and continuous improvement (Berglas-Shapiro and Flash-Gvili, 2021).
Effective PLCs assume that teaching is an ever-changing practice that challenges educators to constantly examine pedagogical approaches to determine what best suits them (Roberts & Pruitt, 2008). Studies have shown that educators who are members of PLCs improve the quality of their teaching practice, and their students' achievements improve accordingly (Watson, 2014; Prenger et al., 2019).
PLCs can take different forms, depending on the organizations with which they are affiliated. For example, some PLCs may be composed of educators from the same grade level or subject area, while others may be cross-disciplinary. Some PLCs meet in person, while others may use technology to collaborate remotely. However, the common thread among all PLCs is that they are focused on improving student learning and involve collaboration among educators.
A discipline-based professional learning community (DIPLC) is a group of educators within a specific subject or discipline who come together regularly to collaborate and learn from each other to improve both their practices and student outcomes; group members come from diverse cultural, ethnic, and social groups and from different schools. This type of PLC allows educators to focus on a specific subject area and develop a deep understanding of the content, pedagogy, and best practices within that discipline. Learning from practice is an essential component of DIPLCs, as it focuses on interaction in class, the choice of topics and curricula by teachers and students, and the challenges of epistemic quality and joint negotiation of meaning.
In the fan model (Levy et al., 2018), which is commonly used for DIPLCs, teachers' communities are led by two facilitators and operate under the auspices of an academic institute that specializes in the particular discipline. This is a multidirectional, hierarchical model in which the academic institute sets up a "facilitators' community" comprising facilitators from the various field communities. The institute presents them with innovative disciplinary content (skills, content knowledge, and relevant teaching strategies) and teaches them the skills for facilitation. The facilitators' community members evaluate this content and implement the content they deem suitable in the field communities (Aricha & Marzel, 2021). Concurrently, activities that teachers recommend in a particular field community are presented at the facilitators' community so facilitators can disseminate to the other communities. Thus, the content moves up and down the fan, benefiting all teachers who are members of the network of communities (Yayon et. al., 2021).
DIPLC facilitation is an important role in ensuring success. Facilitators are critical to creating a culture of continuous improvement, and are responsible for fostering a collaborative and reflective environment where educators of all backgrounds can share ideas and best practices and work together to improve instruction and student learning outcomes. The rationale for appointing and training DIPLC facilitators stems from educational leadership theories (Connolly, 2019), which advocate for strong, effective leaders who can provide direction and guidance and create and maintain a positive and productive learning environment for all learners.
This study investigated the skills and knowledge required to effectively facilitate DIPLCs within the context of rapid societal changes and emerging social and individual needs. Additionally, it examined different facilitator-training methods and the ways in which these methods supported the DIPLC facilitators. The goal was to understand how to best equip facilitators with the necessary skills and knowledge to lead and support the members of the community in their collaborative efforts to improve teaching and learning.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research employed a mixed methods methodology, which combines both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Its basic premise is that combining qualitative and quantitative data improves the understanding of research problems more than either approach by itself (Creswell & Creswell, 2005). Analyzing the data helps validate the topics covered in the interviews through quantitative findings and vice versa (Greene, 2007; Shorten & Smith, 2017). This method was applied using triangulation design (Creswell et al., 2003), which seeks “to obtain different but complementary data on the same topic” (Morse, 1991, p. 122). The qualitative aspect of this study employed an ethnographic case study approach and a phronetic iterative approach to qualitative data analysis (Tracy, 2013). The phronetic iterative approach is a qualitative method that balances grounded analysis of qualitative data, such as interviews, participant observation field notes, documents, and visuals, with existing literature and theory. The qualitative data was collected over a period of five years using multiple methods, including interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. A total of 60 facilitators participated in the qualitative research, providing valuable insights and perspectives on the topic.
The quantitative data on the effectiveness of different facilitator training models was collected using a questionnaire distributed during the months of April-May 2022 to 163 facilitators of DIPLCs funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE). This data was analyzed using statistical methods to identify patterns and trends, allowing for a systematic and objective examination of the facilitator-training models and their impact on the effectiveness of DIPLC facilitators.
This multi-method approach enabled the researchers to comprehensively analyze the knowledge and skills needed to effectively facilitate DIPLCs and to assess the effectiveness of various facilitator-training models in improving these skills and knowledge. This approach allowed the researchers to obtain a thorough understanding of the key factors that contribute to the success of DIPLC facilitation and the strategies that can be implemented to improve the performance of DIPLC facilitators.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe goal of this research was to develop a "guideline for DIPLC facilitation" that has the potential to assist in selecting the right people for the role and developing a training program for them. This study provided valuable insights into the complexities of DIPLCs and the necessary skills and knowledge required for effective facilitation. In addition, the study examined several models of training.
The study found that there are several skills and areas of knowledge that are necessary to effectively facilitate a DIPLC. These include the abilities to strengthen social capital, to instill motivation for activity, to maintain balance, and to deal with inherent tensions in the community. The study participants emphasized the importance of providing specific training for DIPLC facilitators in order to support PLC success. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that DIPLC facilitators receive training in the areas defined in order to effectively lead and guide the groups in their work. In addition, the results showed that an ongoing facilitators' community (FPLC) is effective for training the facilitators. The FPLC offers participants the ability to model facilitator skills and to learn collaboratively, providing a safe space for consultations and a hub where top professionals in their field can mentor facilitators. The success of an FPLC relies on the ability to balance time spent on mentoring and community activities and to balance between top-down and bottom-up processes. In addition, FPLC success is also determined by the expertise level of the community’s sponsoring academic body – as perceived by the participants
ReferencesAricha, T., Marzel, A. (2021). Models of physics learning communities in Israel. In: Josefsberg Ben-Yehoshua, L. Ed. Professional Learning Communities in Science and Math. Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. 213-221.
Berglas-Shapiro, T., and Flash-Gvili, I. (2021). Motivation invoking professional development – does such a thing exist? In: Josefsberg Ben-Yehoshua, L. Ed. Professional Learning Communities in Science and Math. Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute, 25-49.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry (pp. 315–326). Berrett-Koehler.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L. & Hanson, W. E. (2003). An expanded typology for classifying mixed methods research into designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209-240). Sage.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry (Vol. 9). John Wiley & Sons.
Levy, S., Bagno, E., Berger, H., & Eylon, B. S. (2018, December). Physics Teacher-Leaders' Learning in a National Program of Regional Professional Learning Communities. In Physics Education Research Conference 2018. American Association of Physics Teachers.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123.
Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2019). The effects of networked professional learning communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 441–452.
Roberts, S. M., & Pruitt, E. Z. (Eds.). (2008). Schools as Professional Learning Communities: Collaborative Activities and Strategies for Professional Development. Corwin Press.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Watson, C. (2014). Effective professional learning communities? The possibilities for teachers as agents of change in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 18–29.
Yayon, M., Waldman, R., Katchevich, D., Akones, S., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Rap, S., & Blonder, R. (2021). The influence of professional learning communities on the knowledge and practice of science teacher and student learning: A review of empirical studies. In: Josefsberg Ben-Yehoshua, L. Ed. Professional Learning Communities in Science and Math. Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. 213-221.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
How Do Teacher Leadership and Departmental Professional Learning Communities Matter for Teacher Self-Efficacy? A Multilevel Analysis
Xin Zheng
Southwest University, China, People's Republic of
Presenting Author: Zheng, Xin
Since 1990s, the idea of professional learning communities (PLCs) became fashionable, and now it is widely practiced in North America (DuFour et al., 2010; Hord, 2008), Europe (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Lomos, 2017; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), East Asia (Hairon & Tan, 2017; Pang & Wang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2020) and other contexts (Jäppinen et al., 2016; Vangriekenet al., 2017). PLC is globally welcomed as ample studies have shown that Transforming schools as PLCs can bring enhance student achievement and teacher learning (Vangriekenet al., 2017, Stoll et al., 2006). A PLC is commonly defined as “a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth promoting way” (Stoll et al. 2006, p. 223).
Many previous studies have considered the whole school as a PLC (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016; Zhang et al.,2021), but many scholars have called for assessing the different levels of PLCs (Sleegers et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2021) and their possible influences on students and teachers (Lomos, 2017; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016, 2018). Within schools, departments are the basic unit for teacher collaboration. Teachers are nested in departments and departments are nested in schools. This is especial the case in Chinese schools, where teacher collaboration mainly occurs at the subject-based departments (Gao & Wang, 2014; Wong, 2010). The present study focused on PLCs at the department-level in Chinese contexts. It explored the departmental PLC characteristics and their influences on individual teachers.
In addition, even previous studies have documented the benefits of PLC, it is not self-evident that teachers who engage in departmental PLCs can bring positive outcomes (Louis et al., 2010; Vescio et al., 2008). The study concerns the role of different dimensions of departmental PLC, namely shared norms, collective responsibility, deprivatized practice, and reflective dialogue. Using a multilevel analysis, it analyzed the relationship between departmental level PLC characteristics and individual teacher development.
Leadership is vital in developing and sustain effective PLCs. In school contexts, there exist multiple leaders, such as school principal, middle leaders and teacher leaders. Previous studies have mainly focus on the role of principal leadership in PLCs (Stoll et al., 2006; Vanbalere & Devos, 2016; Vangerieken et al., 2017). The study focused on teacher leaders in departments. Scholars argued that departmental leadership may possess greater influence for the creation of departmental subcultures than senior leadership roles, as teachers were in direct and continuous contact with subject leaders on daily basis as opposed occasional and seasonal contact with senior leaders (Ghamrawi, 2010; Leithwood, 2016; Printy, 2008). Therefore, the study further explored the role of department heads as teacher leaders for teacher development. Teacher leaders’ two types of leadership, namely instructional leadership (IL) and transformational leadership (TL), were examined at the departmental level.
In terms of teacher development outcomes, the study selected teachers’ self-efficacy as the outcome, which is a commonly used indicator for teacher development (Zee & Koomen, 2016). The study addresses teacher leadership and PLCs practices at the departmental level in the Chinese contexts. Two research questions are addressed:
(1) What are the relationships between departmental PLC characteristics and individual teachers’ self-efficacy?
(2) What are the relationships between two types of departmental teacher leadership (namely transformational and instructional leadership) and individual teachers’ self efficacy?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe participants were 907 teachers two Chinese provinces. They are from 81 departments, and the number of teachers in each department is more than 5. Among them, 365 (40.3%) were male teachers, 541(59.7%) were female, and 1 teachers was missing. There were 375 elementary teachers and 531 secondary teachers. In terms of their subjects, 338 (37.3%) taught Chinese language, 312 (34.4%) were mathematics teachers, 134 (14.8%) taught English, and the remaining 123 (13.6%) taught natural science, social science or arts. Furthermore, 58 teachers (6.4%) had taught less than 3 years, 99 (17.5%) had taught for 3–7 years, 211 (23.5%) had taught for 8–15 years, 219 (24.4%) had taught 16–23 years, 311 (34.3%) had taught for 24 years or more, and 9 were missing. Finally, 570 (62.8%) teachers were from urban schools, and 335 (37%) were from rural areas, and 2 were missing.
The questionnaire used in this study included four scales: Professional Learning Community Scale (PLCS, Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), Transformation Leadership Scale (TLS, Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), Instructional Leadership Scale (ILS, Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), and the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale (TSES, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
SPSS 19.0 and Mplus 7.4 were used to analyse the data. First, descriptive statistics at the individual and departmental variables were calculated using SPSS. Then, the reliability of each dimension was tested and CFA was conducted using Mplus to examine the construct validity. Finally, the multilevel linear model (MLM) was conducted in Mplus, and four models were tested (i.e., the null model, Model 1 and Model 2). In the null model, the intra-class correlations (ICC, computed by σ2μ0 / (σ2e0 +σ2μ0), where σ2μ0 denotes the department variance and σ2e0 denotes the individual variance) were calculated. We then added the controlling variables. In Model 1, we added three individual variables related to teacher efficacy: gender, educational level and teaching experience. In Model 2, we added the departmental level variables, i.e., the four PLC dimensions. In model 3, we added teacher transformational leadership and instructional leadership at the departmental level, respectively.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the null model, an ICC coefficient of .275 was found, which indicates that 27.5% of the difference between teachers’ self-efficacy was attributable to differences between departments. The results showed that teachers’ self-efficacy differed significantly between departments. In Zheng et al.’s (2021) multilevel analysis, they found that between-school variance is significant when considering the whole school as a PLC. School-level PLC should not be equal to department-level PLC. Our study goes one step further, and it shows that between-department variance is also significant.
In Model 1, the results show that none of the controlling variables significantly contributed to teachers’ self-efficacy. In Model 2, four characteristics of school level PLC were added, and the results show that reflective dialogue (Est. =0.51, p < .05) and collective responsibility (Est. = .60, p < .001) were associated with individual self-efficacy. The results corroborate the findings of previous studies (Kennedy & Smith, 2013; Vanblaere& Devos, 2016). The results call our attention to collective responsibility to student learning and deep reflective dialogues between colleagues, as they can promote teachers’ teaching efficacy. The results means that, in departments, collective structure and sharing practices (e.g., observing others’ classes) are not enough. Critical conversations between colleagues and deep reflections on teaching practices or student learning are important for teachers’ authentic learning in communities.
In model 3 and 4, teacher transformational leadership was significantly related with individual self-efficacy (Est. = 32.81, p < .001), while teacher instructional leadership is not a significant predictor. The study showed that departmental teacher transformational leadership had positive influences on teacher self-efficacy while teacher instructional leadership had not. The study implicates that departmental leader should create a more harmonious and communicable learning atmosphere for teachers, provide learning support and feedback on their professional learning within departments.
ReferencesDoğan, S., & Adams, A. (2018). Effffect of professional learning communities on teachers and students: Reporting updated results and raising questions about research design. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 634–659.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralized curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers’ experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1–11.
Jäppinen, A.-K., Leclerc, M., & Tubin, D. (2016). Collaborativeness as the core of professional learning communities beyond culture and context: Evidence from Canada, Finland, and Israel. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 315–332.
Leithwood, K. (2016). Department-head leadership for school improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 117-140.
Lomos, C. (2017). To what extent do teachers in European countries differ in their professional community practices? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 276–291.
Sleegers, P., den Brok, P., Verbiest, E., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2013). Toward conceptual clarity: A multidimensional, multilevel model of professional learning communities in Dutch elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 118–137.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher effiffifficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Relating school leadership to perceived professional learning community characteristics: A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 26-38.
Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2018). The role of departmental leadership for professional learning communities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 85-114.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495.
Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). Are professional learning communities beneficial for teachers? A multilevel analysis of teacher self-efficacy and commitment in China. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(2), 197-217.
|
